IMPORTANT POINT
Loan once taken has to be repaid.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 23.10.2012 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.1556 of 2010.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the Petitioner/Complainant are that Sh.Joginder Pal, Malhotra, Respondent/Complainant purchased a Rhino-R-3 DLX, Diesel Car From M/s. Shivalik Automobiles, G.T. Road, Moga—Respondent No/Opposite Party No. 2 in Complaint No. 580 of 2009. There was an exchange offer and as such the Petitioner handed over the old car, price of which was assessed as Rs. 85,000/-. The new car was purchased on 11.10.2007 by getting the remaining amount financed from the Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1. The Petitioner used the said car as a Taxi for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. It was stated that the Petitioner regularly paid the loan instalment. Further, in the month of December, 2008, the Petitioner demanded for the account statement from the Respondent No.1, so that he may clear the loan amount outstanding against him. Respondent No.1 failed to supply the said account statement despite his repeated requests and visits.

3. In the month of August, 2009, the employee of the Respondent no.1 snatched the vehicle in the area of village Sham Singh Wala under Police Station Mamdot, from the driver Anil Kumar S/o Khiali Ram without any prior notice. It was alleged that the driver also connived with the Respondent No.1 for causing wrongful loss to the Petitioner. The Petitioner informed the Respondent No.1 that he was ready to clear outstanding loan amount but the Respondent No.1 did not return the vehicle to the Petitioner. It was also alleged that the Respondent No.1 misappropriated the valuable articles of the Petitioner, which were lying in the vehicle. Since, the Petitioner was using the said vehicle as taxi for earning his livelihood, as such he suffered not only an huge financial loss but also a lot of mental agony, pain and harassment. Hence, he filed a consumer Complaint pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent No.1 and prayed that the Respondent No.1 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and further be directed to settle the amount with the Petitioner and to return back the vehicle in question along with his valuable articles and litigation expenses of Rs.6,000/- may also be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.

4. Respondent No.1 filed its written statement in which preliminary objection was taken as to the maintainability of the Complaint because the vehicle was used by the Petitioner for commercial purpose. It was stated that a loan of Rs.5,93,655/- was sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner by the Respondent No.1 but the Petitioner failed to repay the monthly loan instalments. After May, 2008, the payment of the Petitioner was in bits and pieces. It was submitted that an amount of Rs.1,69,700/- was still due against the Petitioner. Further, when the Petitioner demanded the account statement in respect of the loan account, the same was provided to him but he never visited the Respondent No.1 for settlement of his loan account and he also failed to repay monthly instalments of his loan amount regularly. Letters dated 10.09.2008 and 29.11.2008 were sent to the Petitioner and one Santosh and one Prem Chand, Guarantor of the loan agreement regarding the default in payment.

5. Respondent No.1 further stated that cheque given by the Petitioner for repayment of instalments was also dishonoured on 27.06.2009 and again letter dated 14.09.2009 was issued to him in this respect. Ultimately, the Respondent No.1 filed a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act at Hoshiarpur. It was denied that in the second week of July, the employees of the Respondent No.1 have wrongly and illegally withheld the vehicle of the Petitioner. It was also denied that the Re