Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Through Video Conferencing
Shaikh Sadulla Abdul Gafur Samda —Petitioner
versus
Tata Motor Finance Ltd. and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1945 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 08/01/2014 in Appeal No.1222/2008 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 24.11.2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vivek C. Solshe and Mr. Varun V. Solshe, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Already Ex-parte
For the Respondent No.3: Deleted
IMPORTANT POINT
For default in repayment of vehicle loan, seizure of subject vehicle by financer upheld.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(c) and 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 2(6), 58]—Motor vehicle—Default in repayment of loan—Seizure of vehicle—Legality—Complainant-petitioner defaulted in making payment, thus his vehicle was repossessed by financer and sold—Concurrent finding of fact that before seizure of subject vehicle the notice dated 14.11.2005 was duly received by complainant—Plea that subject vehicle was forcibly ceased even without due process of law, i.e., without notice, etc., not accepted—Since the complaint remained silent for more than two and half years after repossession of vehicle by financier thus the claim for compensation towards loss of income, etc., cannot be sustained. (Paras 10 to 16)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER (ORAL)
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred as complainant) challenging the order dated 8.1.2014 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1222/2008.
2. The complainant had filed a complaint in the year 2008 in the District Forum alleging the deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.1 & 2 who are the financers and hereinafter referred as the financers.
3. The brief contentions of the complainant were that at the time of purchase of his Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration number as MH-26-741, he obtained a loan of Rs.3,14,000/- from the financer which was payable in 47 equal monthly installments. He paid 19 installments regularly till 2.11.2005 and thereafter defaulted in making the payments. His vehicle was repossessed by the financer on 20.12.2005 without giving any notice. It was subsequently sold without informing him.
4. The contention of the respondent had been that on account of default in payment of the installments, a notice dated 14.11.2005 was issued to the complainant asking him to make the payments and since no payment was made even thereafter, the vehicle was repossessed and was also sold as per procedure. It was contended that there was no deficiency on the part of the financer.
5. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum and the District Forum after considering all the contentions of the parties and perusing the documents on record reached to the following conclusion : (The translated order, original is in Marathi)
Issue No.2 :
The applicant has obtained loan of Rs.3,14,000/- from the non-applicant. Due to non-payment of loan amount and applicant therefore becomes the defaulter, the non-applicant has repossessed from the applicant. After repossessing the non-applicant has sold out the said vehicle and accepted its amount. These all facts clear through the documents placed over before the forum. The non-applicant has repossessed the vehicle of applicant in the year 2005. The non-applicant has sent notice on dated 14.11.2005 for payment of remaining amount. The applicant even after notice has not repaid the non-applicant after 3 months i.e. on dated 10.06.2004 sold out the vehicle for Rs.1,90,000/- after selling the vehicle the non-applicants has not contacted though any letter moreover after obtaining the selling amount out of the said vehicle the non-applicant has not demanded the remaining unpaid amount. After perusing notice it reveals that the non-applicant has not demanded the remaining unpaid amount. After perusing notice it reveals that the non-applicant had intimated to the applicant on dated 4.12.2007 about remaing amount of Rs.22,086/- the applicant has replied on dated 19.01.2007. The applicant has obtain loan amount from the non-applicant the non-applicant has received the cheques from the applicant as security. The non-applicant for clearing the said cheques deposited in bank in the year 2008 but due to non-clearance of amount and for the bouncing of cheque the non-applicant has filed one criminal case u/s 138 of N I act at 30th court Kurla, Mumbai. For the kind information the applicant has filled the summons of said proceeding. It is opinion of the forum that the due to such acts non applicant has committed deficiency in giving service to the applicant.
The applicant after his vehicle was repossessed in the year 2005 and sold out he did not come before the forum for praying his grievances. The non-applicant has after selling out the said vehicle in the year 2006 for recovery of remaining amount has not initiated any proceedings against the applicant. Therefore the non-applicant in the year 2008 has for clearing deposited in the bank but due to non-sufficient amount the said cheque was dishonored and it has filled complaint criminal proceeding u/s 138 of N I Act. This act of non-applicant is unreasonable and illegal. The applicant through his alongwith written argument has filled one decision of
