The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the obligation of parties to follow due process of law before re-possessing financed assets.

ORDER

Arun Kumar Goel, President (Oral)- Respondent preferred Consumer Complaint No. 177/2008 before District Forum, Mandi against the appellants alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the appellants. This complaint was allowed vide impugned order, dated 30.3.2009, hence this appeal.

2. Vehicle bearing registration No. HP-65-0964 was financed by the appellants vide Annexure A-l. Loan agreement Annexure A-l produced by them before the District Forum below is not in dispute. Vehicle was financed in the sum of Rs. 3.60 lacs. This amount with interest, etc., was repayable in 35 monthly equated instalments of Rs. 11,826 each. As per respondent, he had been regularly paying the instalments till November, 2007, however, he defaulted due to some financial problems.

3. On 7.7.2008 according to the respondent the vehicle in question was re-possessed by the appellants through their musclemen who in fact snatched the same illegally by use of force. He claims to have approached the appellants for receiving the due amount and for handing back the vehicle, but of no consequence. In this background according to him, the act and conduct of the appellants constituted deficiency in service, as well as unfair trade practice having been indulged into by them. He also claims to have suffered Rs. 30,000 as loss. In this background complaint was filed seeking direction against the appellants to receive the due instalments, and at the same time to hand back the vehicle along with compensation on account of harassment, apart from cost of litigation.

4. This complaint was resisted by the appellants. As according to them Fora did not have jurisdiction, respondent was estopped from filing the complaint, vehicle was taken over after the respondent had defaulted in repayment of the instalments. Claim of the respondent that he was regularly paying the instalments was also disputed. Use of force while re-possessing the vehicle was also denied. To the contrary, stand of the appellants was, that it was surrendered by the respondent on 8.7.2008 vide delivery letter purported to have been signed by one Mr. Biri Singh, Annexure A-8. Before sale of the vehicle time bound legal notices were also issued on 12.2.2008 and 3.6.2008 to the respondent for liquidating the amount. After vehicle had been surrendered on 8.7.2008, it was got evaluated by the appellants from an Insurance Loss Assessor, vide Annexure A-6. According to him the value of the vehicle was Rs. 2.45 lacs. Thereafter quotations were invited and vide Annexure A-7, only one quotation of Mr. Santosh Kumar was received. And finally the vehicle was sold for this amount. On these facts, claim of the respondent was denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

5. District Forum below after hearing the parties allowed the complaint in the following terms:

"(i) The opposite parties are directed to adjust the sale proceeds of the vehicle towards the satisfaction of the dues by calculating its market value by deducting 20% of the amount from Rs. 4,26,900 i.e. the purchase price of the vehicle by the complainant instead of Rs. 2,45,000 and to adjust Rs. 66,900, the margin money contributed by the complainant towards the price of the vehicle and also to adjust various amounts deposited by the complainant from time to time with the opposite parties towards the payment of the instalments after adjusting unpaid instalments till the date of seizure of the vehicle. It is further directed that the after adjustment of the amounts as aforesaid, if it is found that any excess amount has been paid by the complainant the same shall be refunded to him.

(ii) The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000 on account of harassment, mental agony, pain, loss of business and Rs. 1500 as costs of litigation.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that District Forum below had no jurisdiction to have entertained the complaint in the face of the terms of the loan agreement Annexure A-l. F