Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Sharma, President and Ms. Heena Thakkar, Member
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE LTD. AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
SUSHEEL MISHRA - Respondent
Appeal No. FA/12/661
Decided on : 26-02-2014
Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. B.P. Tiwari, Advocate, for the Respondent
Under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the financier is the real owner of the vehicle and has the right to repossess the vehicle in case of default by the hirer.
Headnote:
Repossession - Consumer Complaint - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 21, Section 27] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to repossession of vehicles under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the rights and remedies of the finance company, and the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also referred to various judgments to establish the legal principle that the financier is the real owner of the vehicle under the Hire Purchase Agreement and has the right to repossess the vehicle in case of default by the hirer.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a second-hand car with financial assistance from the OPs. The OPs repossessed the vehicle, leading to a consumer complaint alleging financial loss and mental agony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the OPs were guilty of committing deficiency in service by repossessing the vehicle. It concluded that the complainant failed to prove that the vehicle was forcibly repossessed by the OPs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the repossession of the vehicle, the rights and obligations of the parties under the loan agreement, and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to decide the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in previous judgments to determine that the financier is the real owner of the vehicle under the Hire Purchase Agreement and has the right to repossess the vehicle in case of default by the hirer.
Final Decision: The appeal of the OPs was allowed, and the impugned order of the District Forum was set aside, leading to the dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainant.
ORDER
Mr. Justice R.S. Sharma, President - This appeal is directed against order dated 11.10.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No. C.C. 12/20. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,12,904 within a month from the date of order, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.1.2012 till date of payment to the complainant. It has further been directed to the O.P. to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum are : that the complainant Rajendra Kumar Mishra purchased a second hand Maruti 800 Car, bearing registration Number C.G.04-B-7358 with the help of financial assistance provided by the OPs and loan of Rs. 1,24,000, was sanctioned. The said loan was payable by the complainant in 48 instalments @ Rs. 3,563 per month, along with finance charge. The complainant deposited the amount, as mentioned in para No. 5 of the complaint and he deposited total amount of Rs. 2,25,908. The O.P.No.3 gave receipt for the amount of Rs. 81,350. On 3.10.2010, the O.P.No.2 without giving any intimation, forcibly repossessed the vehicle in question. The late Rajendra Kumar Mishra, husband of the present respondent, wanted information regarding repossession of the vehicle from OPs, then he was directed to contact their office. The late Rajendra Kumar Mishra, deposited last instalment of Rs. 5,000 on 20.10.2010, but the vehicle in question was not released by the OPs. On being asked by the OPs, the late Rajendra Kumar Mishra, delivered surrender letter dated 11.2.2011 to the OPs. The OPs did not return the vehicle to the complainant and due to this, the complainant suffered financial loss and he also suffered mental agony and ultimately the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. The OPs filed their written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the matter involves legal questions and it will be decided only after taking evidence, therefore, the matter is of civil nature, hence, the District Forum is not competent to decide the case summarily. The relation between the OPs and the complainant is of "financer" and "borrower". The late Rajendra Kumar Mishra, himself surrendered the vehicle on 28.2.2011, because he was incapable and unable to deposit the instalments in time, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Managers of the OPs/Company are not necessary party in the complaint. The agreement was executed between OPs and the complainant, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable against the Managers OPs/Company. OPs further averred that the complainant is not "consumer" of the OPs, hence the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. According to Clause 29 of Agreement the Arbitrator shall only have jurisdiction to decide the matter, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before the District Forum. The OPs/Company has not committed any deficiency in service.
4. Learned District Forum, on the basis of material available before it, came to the conclusion that the OPs/Company was guilty of committing deficiency in service as the vehicle was repossessed by the OPs. Learned District Forum, further averred that OPs seized the vehicle in question in the month of October, 2010. Had the vehicle was not seized by the OPs, then the vehicle was redeemed from mortgage and the District Forum has allowed the complaint and awarded the compensation to the complainant, as mentioned hereinabove in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment.
5. Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned Counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant had not deposited the instalments regularly and defaulted in making instalments, therefore, the OPs repossessed the
