NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat
Ram Maurya, Member
Induslnd Bank Limited and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Simarjit Singh – Respondent
Revision Petition No.187 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 26/10/2018 in Appeal No.11/2009 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 20.7.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
Vehicle’s possession taken by financer forcibly and in absence of any prior notice to the Respondent, it comes under unfair trade practice.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 24) – Revision Petition – Against the Order dt. 26.10.2018 in Appeal passed by State Commission – Distt. Forum dismissed complaint of the Respondent due to the claim of more than Rs. 20 lakhs which was treated as original complaint by State Commission - Respondent himself driving vehicle and earning his livelihood; hence, vehicle not used for commercial purpose - For obtaining loan of Rs.13,50,000/-, Petitioner deposited Rs.4,69,323/- as marginal money – Petitioner no. 1 financed Ashok Leyland Tractor to Respondent - Respondent was paying monthly instalments of Rs.35,150/- regularly but due to financial problem committed default in payment of 3 instalments - Respondent was going to Srinagar in vehicle loaded with timber, on way 10-12 representatives of financer stopped vehicle and took forcible possession, along with timber of more than Rs. 20 lakhs loaded in it – State Commission directed Petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.10,80,000/-, with cost of timber Rs.20,00,000/- and respondent’s loss of income of Rs. 3,000/ per month to Respondent - Vehicle’s possession taken by financer forcibly and in absence of any prior notice to the Respondent, it comes under unfair trade practice.

Held: Simarjit Singh (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No. 344 of 2008, against Indusind Bank Limited, SCO 21, Feroz Gandhi Market, opposite Ludhiana Stock Exchange, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager and Indusind Bank Limited, 701, Solitaire Corporate Park, 167, Guru Hargovindji Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai, through its Chairman, (the petitioners) (hereinafter referred to as the financer) for (i) release of vehicle No. PB-13 Q-8731, (ii) to give back the timber loaded in the vehicle and two trapals of 24’ X 14’ each, (iii) to return all the documents of the vehicles (iv) to pay of Rs.4,00,000/- as the financial loss caused the respondent, (v) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for his mental agony, torture and pain and (vi) Rs.11,000/- as the cost of litigation. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased a Ashoka Layland, 4018 Tusker Turbo Tractor 130 WB, bearing Chassis No. WFA 062339, Engine No. XFH-392266 and registration No. PB-13 Q-8731 (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle) from Sindh Motors Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana, for Rs.13,50,000/- in July 2006. Petitioner-1 financed the aforesaid sale consideration and opened Loan Account No. JL-003804H, in the name of the respondent. The respondent was paying monthly instalments of Rs.35,150/- regularly. However, due to financial problem, the respondent had committed default in payment of 3 instalments. The financer issued a demand notice dated 12.03.2008, showing an amount of Rs.1,39,335/- due towards monthly instalments. Then the respondent deposited Rs.1,04,200/- on 24.03.2008, Rs.35,150/- on 06.05.2008 and Rs.36,000/- on 31.05.2008 (total Rs.1,75,350/-). The respondent had deposited total Rs.8,19,300/- up to 31.05.2008 while, according to the schedule of the instalments, he had to pay total Rs.8,08,000/- up to June, 2008. The respondent was going to Srinagar from Gandhi Dham (Gujarat) on 03.07.2008, along with the vehicle, loaded with the timber for its delivery but due to truck drivers/owners strike, he had to stay at his village Bhasaur, which was on the way to Srinagar. The respondent got filled with diesel, in the vehicle on 04.07.2008 and started his journey to Srinagar with the vehicle. As soon as he came out of his village Bhasaur, about 10-12 peoples, representing themselves to be men of the financer, stopped the vehicle and took forcible possession of it along with timber loaded in it. The financer did not give any prior notice for taking possession of the vehicle. In the vehicle, timber of Rs.20,00,000/- was loaded, which was also taken by the men of the financer. Due to highhandedness act of the financer, the consignment could not be delivered in Srinagar, which caused heavy financial loss to the respondent. The financer issued a notice dated 09.07.2008, demanding Rs.1,16,504/-, which was much more than the dues of amount of instalments.

In spite of time being granted, no evidence was filed by the financer. State Commission, after hearing the parties, by its judgement dated 26.10.2018, found that as soon as District Forum came to the conclusion that it had no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, it ought to have returned the complaint for presentation before the Forum/Commission of competent jurisdiction. Its findings, on merit, were without jurisdiction. Total valuation of the claims made in the complaint was Rs.42,50,000/- as such District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction and the complaint was cognizable by Sate Commission. So far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned according to the respondent, forcible possession of the vehicle was taken from a place falling within district Sangrur while according to the financer, the vehicle was surrendered to its branch office, Ludhiana. In both the cases, State Commission has territorial jurisdiction. As about 10 years has already elapsed after filing the complaint, as such, relying upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital, 2000 (2) CLT 489 and exercising powers under Section 17 (1) b) of the Act, the appeal was directed to be treated as the complaint and registered as Original Complaint before State Commission. State Commission further held that the financer gave notice dated 12.03.2008, demanding Rs.1,39,335/- towards the dues of the instalments. After receiving this notice, the respondent deposited Rs.1,04,200/- on 24.03.2008, Rs.35,150/- on 06.05.2008 and Rs.36,000/- on 31.05.2008 (total Rs.1,75,350). From which it was proved that on the date of possession, nothing was due towards instalment of the loan. The financer took the plea that the respondent had taken another loan of Rs.8,77,000/- vide Loan Account No. JL 004701H; Instalments of that Loan Account were due for which the respondent had given a cheque but it was dishonoured for insufficient fund and a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, read with Section 420 IPC had been initiated against him, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and due to dues of this loan account, the vehicle was surrendered on 05.07.2008, but a perusal of judgement of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana shows that the respondent was acquitted from the charges on the finding that the financer had failed to prove that there was any liability against the respondent, for which the cheque was allegedly issued; alleged surrender letter dated 07.07.2008 was a document, fabricated on a blank signed paper. For these reasons, State Commission disbelieved the case of the financer that there was any dues against the respondent for which he had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle. State Commission held that the financer took forcible possession of the vehicle along timber loaded in it, on 04.07.2008, from a place falling in district Sangrur when it was in the way to Srinagar without giving any prior notice and committed deficiency in service. State Commission further found that the financer took the plea that the timber loaded in the vehicle was handed over to one Balwant Singh, representative of the respondent but no evidence has been adduced to show that Balawant Singh was representative of the respondent. State Commission found that the vehicle was purchased for Rs.13,50,000/- in July 2006. Giving 20% depreciation on its value for two years, compensation was assessed to Rs.10,80,000/-, cost of the timber was assessed to Rs.20,00,000/-, loss of income of the respondent was assessed to Rs.3000/- per month.

State Commission disbelieved the case of the financer that the respondent had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle. The possession of the vehicle was taken by the financer. In the absence of any prior notice in the respect, it was unfair trade practice. So far as the arguments that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose is concerned, State Commission found that the respondent himself was driving this vehicle and earning his livelihood from it. There is no contrary material to contradict this finding. Award of Arbitrator was set aside due to order of the State Commission as such it has no effect under the law. A perusal of ledger of Loan Account No. JL003804H shows that for obtaining loan of Rs.13,50,000/- the petitioner had deposited Rs.4,69,323/- as marginal money. Purchase price of the vehicle might be more than Rs.18 lakh. (Paras 3, 7 & 13)

Result: Revision Petition Dismissed.