KANWALJIT SINGH vs CITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD.

THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that M/s. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. (respondent No. 1) is finance company carrying on business of auto finance on interest. M/s. Axcess Marketing is its agent while M/s. Aggarwal Rajiv and Associates is its collecting agent for the area of Chandigarh. It was next averred that the appellant approached M/s. Axcess Marketing in the month of May, 2001 for getting brand new Maruti Standard car financed from the respondent. Accordingly M/s. Axcess Marketing got an agreement dated 15.5.2001 and other documents signed from the appellant. However, it did not allow the appellant to read the contents of those documents. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 38,700 in all vide various receipts. M/s. Pasco Automobiles, Chandigarh delivered a Maruti car to the appellant on 14.5.2001 which was financed by the respondent through its marketing agent M/s. Axcess Marketing for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000. The appellant was required to return the amount in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 4,220 each. The said car was registered with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh vide Registration No. CH-03J4720. However, the appellant defaulted in making payment of some of instalments. He had written some letters to the respondent requesting it to extend the time of payment as he was unable to pay instalments, but no relief was given.

It was further alleged that respondent without the knowledge of appellant seized the car. He had lodged a complaint with the Police Station, Mohali about the theft of car but the police had shown him documents revealing that the representatives of respondent had taken away the vehicle for non-payment of instalments. By illegal seizure of the car, he had suffered a loss of Rs. 78,700.

IT was further averred that the appellant approached respondent in the month of May, 2002 and on its assurance he had paid the balance amount and the respondent issued final payment certificate dated 20.5.2002, copy of which is Annexure C-15, but the respondent failed to give delivery of the vehicle. IT also did not refund the amount. With these allegations, complaint was filed and he demanded compensation of Rs. 5 lacs besides returning the car or in the alternative demanded price of the car.

RESPONDENT contested the complaint and filed written reply. It stated that that vehicle Maruti 800 was provided to the appellant under hire purchase facility and was granted a loan of Rs. 1,70,770 which was to be repaid in 59 months i.e., Rs. 4,220 were to be paid monthly as hire charges. However, the appellant defaulted in payment of monthly instalments and as such it was forced to repossess the vehicle and sold it to M/s. Reliance Tourist and Finance Co. in April, 2002 for consideration of Rs. 1,52,000 which amount was credited to the account of the appellant as reflected in Annexure O.P.-1/1. After this, still the balance of Rs. 55,079.37 remained due from the appellant. It further stated that exercise of right under the hire purchase agreement cannot be construed as deficiency in service as it had exercised the right in accordance with the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement. It denied that NOC was ever issued to the appellant but asserted that NOC was issued to the new customer of the vehicle and the appellant somehow obtained copy of NOC and concocted a false story. It further stated that since, appellant had not paid the finance amount of the car, so, there was no question of giving delivery of the vehicle or refund of any amount to him. M/s. Axcess Marketing was sued as respondent No. 2 while M/s. Aggarwal Rajiv and Associates was sued as respondent No. 3. However, name of M/s. Axcess Marketing was deleted at the instance of appellant while M/s. Aggarwal Rajiv and Associates did not appear despite service. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the District Forum vide its order dated 19.5.2005 dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal. We have heard Counsel for the appellant Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for respondent Mr. Aditya Makkhim and carefully gone through the file. It is an admitted fact that hire purchase agreement dated 11.5.2001 was executed between the parties, according to which appellant was granted a finance facility of Rs. 1,70,770 and the same was to be repaid in 59 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 4,220 each. However, appellant due to his family problems could not pay some of monthly instalments and requested the respondent to grant more time to make payment but the respondent did not give any relief and ultimately seized the vehicle without the knowledge and consent of the appellant. After seizure, respondent sold the vehicle in auction for Rs. 1,52,000 and after crediting this amount, Rs. 55,079 still remained due from the appellant.

THE case of the appellant is that afterwards he had paid the balance amount and the respondent had issued no objection certificate, whose photocopy is Annexure C-15. It is dated 20.5.2002. It is stated in it that the loan-cum-hypothecation facility taken by Kanwaljit Singh regarding Vehicle No. CH 02 T2607 has been paid in full. THE lien on the above vehicle for the purchase of vehicle may thus be removed. Later on, it was revalidated till 30.11.2002. THE original of this no objection certificate has not been produced. THE case of the appellant is that he had taken the original to the godown of respondent for delivery of the vehicle but the employees of respondent kept the original and did not deliver the Maruti car. Respondent in para-13 of the written reply on merits had denied that appellant ever approached it in May, 2002 for clearing its dues and any assurance was given regarding delivery of the vehicle back to him. It also denied that NOC was ever issued to him but asserted that the NOC was issued to the new customer of the vehicle and the appellant had somehow obtained copy of the said NOC and had concocted a false story. Admittedly, the vehicle after seizure, had been sold to M/s. Reliance Tourist and Finance Co. for a sum of Rs. 1,52,000. Thus, execution of original NOC, whose photocopy is Annexure C-15 has not been denied. However, case of the respondent is that it was issued in favour of M/s. Reliance Tourist and Finance Co. and the appellant had obtained copy of the same from some person. A perusal of copy of NOC shows that it is not issued in favour of M/s. Reliance Tourist and Finance Co. but has been issued in favour of Kanwaljit Singh, appellant. If the appellant had defaulted and had not paid the loan amount in full, NOC would not have been issued in his name and language of the NOC would not have been as it is. Since, stand of respondent is that NOC was issued in favour of someone else then in such circumstances it would have contained the name of that person and the narration would have been to the effect that Kanwaljit Singh, who had taken loan had defaulted and the hire purchase agreement had been terminated and the registration certificate in the name of Kanwaljit Singh needs to be cancelled. Annexure C-15 issued by the respondent is not as per requirement of law for transfer of ownership of hire-purchase car where hire-purchaser had defaulted. THErefore, in these circumstances the only conclusion is that no objection certificate was issued in favour of the appellant as he had paid the amount in full but later on, respondent with dishonest intention did not return the car and sold it in auction to M/s. Reliance Tourist and Finance Co. on 21.11.2005.

COUNSEL for respondent took a different stand. He stated that respondent had prepared no objection certificate and had kept the same on file and it was not delivered to the appellant and he did not know how appellant got photocopy of the same. He further stated that many instalments still remained due to be paid by the appellant and he had committed default for 20-21 times but still they had prepared NOC. It does not appeal to reason that the appellant had committed default in paying instalments 20-21 times and still many instalments remained due, yet it prepared NOC and kept on file. It is against natural conduct. It only shows that NOC was prepared after receiving the amount. Therefore, there is deficiency in service and respondent is liable to return the car. Since, it had sold the car in auction to M/s. Reliance Tourist and Finance Co., in April, 2002 for Rs. 1,52,000, so, it is liable to refund its price. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, appeal is accepted with costs of Rs. 5,000 and the respondent is directed to refund Rs. 1,52,000 to the appellant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of seizure i.e., 12.4.2002 till its payment. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal allowed.