Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. vs BRIJESH MOURYA

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'') directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as the ''District Forum'') in Complaint Case No. 85/2005. The District Forum has held the appellant/O.P. deficient in service and directed that the repossessed Jeep from the complainant be returned to the complainant. It has also been directed that the O.P. shall pay Rs. 20,000 with Rs. 500 as cost of complaint to the complainant.

COMPLAINANT has averred that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 50,000 from the O.P. as refinance for a jeep on 2.6.2003 which was repayable in 14 instalments. Pre-signed cheques were also given to the O.P. so that the same could be encashed in case of default in cash payments. COMPLAINANT defaulted in repayment of loan instalment but the O.P. instead of getting the said cheques encashed, simply snatched away the vehicle forcibly on 27.2.2005. No notice of default or repossession was given. On being contacted, the O.P. intimated that an amount of Rs. 8,976 and Rs. 10,000 as charges for repossession will have to be paid. Despite payment of the balance amount of instalment of Rs. 8,976 the vehicle was not returned. A compensation of Rs. 50,000 has been prayed for.

It is stated by the O.P. in reply that Rs. 50,000 were financed by the O.P. for a Jeep to the complainant. Loan was to be repaid in 17 monthly instalments. Advance cheques provided were in the name of the complainant''s brother which could not be encashed as the bank stopped payment of the same. Complainant was informed to pay the due amount by notice and phone but it was not paid. Therefore, the vehicle was repossessed in terms of the agreement of hire purchase.

COMPLAINANT has filed receipts of instalments paid. Copy of the hire purchase agreement and notices regarding the default in payment of instalments is on record as filed by the O.P. During the appeal, the appellant has applied for permission to file copies of document relating to accounts. These documents appear to be necessary for adjudication of the present complainant and hence, the application under Order 41 Rules 27 of the CPC is allowed. From perusal of the account statement filed by the appellant during appeal, it appears that there was a delay of a few days in payment of instalment Nos. 3 to 12. However, we also find that the complainant has paid additional amount in excess of the instalment amount in most of the instalments. Presumably, the additional amount paid by the complainant was the penalty for defaults (described a Additional Finance Charges by the Financier).

AS per the said statement of account only Rs. 3,725 as additional financial charges remained unpaid, Rs. 10,000 as repossession charges and Rs. 5,000 as legal expenses have been added to this. We also find that all the payments have been made by the complainant in cash. As averred by the complainant, cheques were obtained from the complainant before financing the said loan but they were not presented to the Bank for encashment. O.P. in reply has stated that the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. But there is no material to support the contention. Neither the dishonoured cheque nor any letter from the bank has been produced. In our opinion, the complainant could not have been termed as defaulter unless the cheque obtained as security was dishonoured. In view of the acceptance of the said cheque by the O.P. before the agreement, it is of little significance whether the said cheque was issued by the complainant or by a third party.

COMPLAINANT has stated that no prior notice was sent to him by the O.P. before taking away the vehicle. Although the O.P./appellant has filed copies of the notices allegedly sent to the complainant but it is not stated how the said notices were sent nor any acknowledgment produced. In our opinion, complainant was entitled to the status of his loan account before the vehicle was taken away. As regards repossession charges, an amount of Rs. 10,000 have been shown. The hire purchase agreement does not authorize the O.P. to fix the charges arbitrarily. How this figure is arrived at is not stated.

WE cannot fail to notice that the appellant appears to be on the look out to snatch away the vehicle on the slightest pretext by adopting any mean fair or foul, with the obvious intention of extortion from the borrower. In view of the above discussion and the material on record the impugned order deserves to be affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant-O.P. shall bear his own cost and also pay that of the appeal to the respondent-complainant which is fixed at Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only). Appeal dismissed.