IMPORTANT POINT
Repossession of Vehicle – Default in payment of EMIs – No deficiency in service.

ORDER

Gautam Chourdiya, President.—This appeal is filed against order dated 03.10.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2017/373 whereby thecomplaint was dismissed observing that the complainant/ appellant herself defaulted in repayment of financed amount and consequently lawfully following the procedures the vehicle in question was repossessed by the financier, in which no deficiency in service was committed. Aggrieved the complainant has preferred this appeal.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant / appellant purchased a truck with the help of finance of Rs.25,00,000/- provided by the opposite party / respondent finance company on 10.06.2015, which was to be repaid in EMIs of Rs.61,341/- till 15.01.2020. As per case of the complainant/ appellant she was paying the EMIs regularly and total Rs.13,00,000/- has been deposited by her but even then the vehicle was repossessed on 17.06.2017 by the financier in unauthorized way with key obtaining signature of the driver on a blank paper. Alleging which as deficiency in service complaint was filed.

3. The opposite party / respondent in their written version except the admitted facts denied all the adverse allegations levelled in the complaint and averred that regular EMI payments were stopped for 7-8 months and the vehicle was hidden at some other place. So, following the procedure notice was given and signature of the complainant / appellant or her representative was obtained in all the procedures and the vehicle was lawfully repossessed in which no deficiency in service

was committed by the opposite party / respondent. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. Learned District Commission dismissed the complaint with the observations as mentioned hereinabove in paragraph No.1.

5. Final arguments heard. Record perused. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties.

6. During the course of hearing of this appeal vide order sheet dated 26.02.2024 this Commission made some specific queries to the respondent’s learned counsel and directed to file certain documents pertaining to the finance account in question. In compliance of which learned counsel for the respondent/ opposite party on 24.06.2024 filed certain documents as per list along with an application under order 41 rule 27 of CPC, I.A. No.01/2024. Being the documents vital and decisive for the disputes involved in this matter the I.A. No.01/2024 is allowed and the documents are taken record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant / complainant reiterating the contentions made in the complaint has argued before us that 24 EMIs of Rs.61,341/- i.e. total amount of Rs.14,72,182/- was to be repaid between 15.07.2015 to 16.06.2017 out of which Rs.13,58,683/- was already repaid and only two EMIs total Rs.1,19,462/- could not be repaid. On the demand of the respondent/ opposite party of Rs.1,65,000/- was also deposited on 16.06.2017 through RTGS but even then on 17.06.2017 the vehicle was illegally repossessed which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, but learned District Commission has failed to properly appreciate the

above facts and passed an erroneous

order, which is liable to set aside allowing this appeal and granting the reliefs sought in the complaint.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent / opposite party reiterating their averments made in the written version before District Commission has supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

9. From the statement of account filed by the appellant / complainant herself before the District Commission, Exhibit C-11 the copy of complaint sent to the Superintendent of Police Exhibit C-6 and to the the Collector Exhibit C-7 it clearly appears that the appellant/ complaint defaulted in repayment of EMIs. In the appeal memo and written arguments also the appellant/ complainant ha