Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
PIARE LAL GARG, JASBIR SINGH GILL, JJ.
Megma Leasing Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar – Respondent
First Appeal No. 1433 of 2008
Decided On : 26-03-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kaushik.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegal repossession of the car by the appellants, highlighting the provisions of the 'Code of Bank’s Commitments to Customers' and relevant legal precedents.
Headnote:
Repossession - Consumer Dispute - Code of Bank’s Commitments to Customers - 3, 4, 5, 6 - The court discussed the repossession of the car by the appellants and highlighted the provisions of the 'Code of Bank’s Commitments to Customers' regarding the recovery of dues and repossession of security. The court emphasized that the car was illegally repossessed by the appellants against the policy and cited relevant legal precedents to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a car with a loan from the appellants. After failing to pay installments due to a family emergency, the car was repossessed by the appellants, leading to a complaint by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the car was illegally repossessed by the appellants and emphasized the provisions of the 'Code of Bank’s Commitments to Customers' regarding repossession of security.
Issues: The main issue was the illegal repossession of the car by the appellants and the respondent's complaint for compensation and possession of the car.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the illegal repossession of the car by the appellants and cited relevant legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, modified the District Forum's order, and directed the appellants to pay compensation to the respondent and transfer the car's ownership to the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
PIARE LAL GARG, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants-Magma Leasing Limited and Another (hereinafter called ‘the appellants’) against the order dated 6.11.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib(hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called ‘the respondent’) was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent purchased Indica Car bearing Registration No. PB-23F-3387 on 14.6.2006 from Goel Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sirhind for an amount of Rs. 3,56,925/- and deposited Rs. 65,000/- including first installment with the appellants on the same day. Loan of Rs. 3 lacs was sanctioned and financed by the appellants for the purchase of the Car. The respondent paid the installments regularly from 14.8.2006 to 30.7.2008 and receipts were also issued by the Field Officer of the appellants in this regard to the respondent. It was also pleaded that he could not deposit the installments due from August, 2008 due to accident of his brother-in-law, who was under treatment at P.G.I. Hospital, Chandigarh. It was also alleged that on 20.8.2008 the employees of the appellants had taken the repossession of the car forcibly at Village Kharora when the respondent was going to Patiala alongwith one Darbara Singh. It was also pleaded by the respondent that he approached many times to the appellants to release his car but the sane was not released by the appellants. The complaint was filed by the respondent with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs. 1 lac as damages and compensation and also for the direction to the appellants to hand over the possession of the car to the respondent. It was also prayed that any other relief which the District Forum may deem fit and proper may be granted to the respondent.
3. Upon notice, the appellants filed the written reply after taking preliminary objections like, maintainability, cause of action, territorial jurisdiction, respondent do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’, not approached the District Forum with clean hands and bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent after executing the loan agreement had availed the loan facility of Rs. 3 lacs, which was to be repaid in 60 installments of Rs. 6870/- per month. The respondent failed to re-pay the installments as per agreement and the respondent himself surrendered the vehicle with the appellants. The loan facility was availed by the respondent at Patiala and the car was also surrendered at Patiala. It was further alleged that there was no office of the appellants at Fatehgarh Sahib, as such, the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. The other allegations of the respondent were also denied by the appellants. It was also pleaded by the appellants that they are ready to restore the possession of the car if the respondent pay Rs. 57860/- which was outstanding towards the respondent. It was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite Party No. 3 was deleted from the array of the pleadings vide interim order dated 13.10.2008 on the statement of counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, accepted the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellants to release the car to the respondent within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order and also pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent as compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of the complaint.
6. Aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the appellants filed the present appeal on the grounds that the order of the District Forumis contrary to record, against facts, illegal, arbitrary and is based on mere conjectures and surmises, assumptions and presumptions and as such, not tenable in the eyes of law and liable to
