ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 21.07.2022 Date of Reserve : 28.08.2024 Date of Decision : 10.09.2024

1. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Dare House No.2, NSC Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai-600001 through its authorized person.

2. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Shop No.31, Improvement Trust, Scheme No.3, G.T. Road, Moga, through its Branch Manager.

3. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., SCO No.147, 6^th Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Bharat Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab through its authorized person.

Presently filed through Sh. Ajay Sharma, Legal Executive, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Branch Office at SCO No.81, Top Floor, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

…..Appellants/Opposite parties Versus Baljit Singh aged 30 years S/o Joginder Singh R/o Ward No.5, Ajit Nagar, Basti Gobindgarh, Tehsil and District, Moga, Punjab.

….Respondent /complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 26.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga.

Quorum:-

Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs.Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Ms.Monika Thatai, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.M.S.Dua, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties – Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. & Ors., against the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) was partly allowed and opposite parties were directed to refund the sale price of the hypothecated vehicle amounting to Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.03.2018 till its actual realization. The opposite parties were also given liberty to recover the outstanding loan amount from the complainant by adopting proper procedure as per law.

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

2. Summarily the facts of the case are that the complainant borrowed the loan of Rs.3,15,000/- from the opposite parties, who is a Financed Company, against the hypothecation of vehicle No.PB-01-7870 and executed an agreement No.XSHUMOG00001441778. It was also agreed that the loan will be repaid in 47 monthly installments along with interest accrued thereupon and installments was fixed amounting to Rs.9,720/- each. The installments were being paid by the complainant regularly but suddenly on one day, some employees of the opposite parties came to the complainant and forcibly took the possession of the vehicle without any reason. The opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant on 15.12.2017 stating therein that an amount of Rs.1,80,851/- stands outstanding against him and asked him to deposit the same within 7 days. On 13.12.2017, the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- with the opposite parties against receipt No.B10142975321 dated 13.12.2017 and with this more than half of the loan installments were paid. The vehicle, which the complainant got financed, was the only source of livelihood of the complainant and his family and this act of the opposite parties by taking the vehicle forcibly impaired the livelihood of the complainant. A legal notice dated 03.01.2018 was also served upon the opposite parties but instead of settling the claim they sent a baseless reply to the said notice. It is further alleged that the opposite parties without giving any notice to the complainant and without settling the account, sold the vehicle illegally, which amounts to unfair trade practice and also forcing him to file the complaint before the District Commission seeking following reliefs:

i) t