KULWANT SINGH PANESAR vs SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.10.2009 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 88/2009, "Kulwant Singh Panesar vs. Shriram Transport Finance Company", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 20.01.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Raipur, in CC No. 99/2008, dismissing the said complaint filed by the present petitioner, was set aside.

In brief, the facts of the case are that a Tata Truck, bearing registration No. CG12C 1569 is stated to have been purchased by Sunil Kumar Singh Thakur, the General Power of Attorney holder of Kulwant Singh Panesar in the name of the said Kulwant Singh Panesar after raising funds from the respondent/OP, Shriram Transport Finance Company, repayable in monthly instalments. The said vehicle was, however, seized by the Financer Company on 28.04.2008 on account of non-payment of instalments and was parked at New Taj Parking Yard, Ring Road No. 2, Raipur, by them. On 08.05.2008, a sum of Rs.82,500/- was deposited by the GPA holder with the OP Financer as remaining instalments of the loan, upon which, the vehicle was ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. It is alleged that on the very next day, i.e., on 09.05.2008, when the GPA holder went to the New Taj Parking Yard to get his truck back, he found that many valuable/major parts of the vehicle were found missing/stolen. Around 260 litres of diesel in the truck, had also been taken away. The matter was brought to the notice of the Branch Manager of the Financer Company, who sent a person to fit some old parts in the vehicle, which was opposed by the GPA holder. The matter was reported to the Police and a written complaint was also filed before the District Forum. However, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, saying that the complainant did not want to pay the parking charges for the parking yard and moreover, he had sold the vehicle to Sunil Kumar Singh Thakur. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission.

The State Commission allowed the appeal vide impugned order and directed as follows:-

" Considering all materials, we find that the vehicle was not provided by the financer to the appellant herein even after payment of overdue instalments and thus deficiency in service has been committed. As the vehicle is still in possession of the financer, the financer is directed to hand over the vehicle alongwith its original parts to the appellant herein, within a period of one month. He is further directed to pay compensation of 7,500/- for the deficiency in service. Parking charges, from the date of its seizure to the date of delivery, will be borne by the appellant herein @75/- per day. With these directions, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No cost. "

Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant through his GPA holder, is before us by way of the present revision petition, pleading that the amount of compensation, i.e., Rs.7,500/- allowed to him by the State Commission should be suitable enhanced. It is also averred that the complainant was facing financial loss and mental harassment due to the illegal acts of the opposite parties (OPs) and that he was not required to pay the parking charges beyond 08.05.2008. He was responsible to pay the said charges from 02.05.2008 to 08.05.2008 only.

During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the impugned order of the State Commission in which they observed that there was some default in the payment of instalments, but once the overdue instalments were paid by the complainant and release orders were issued by the Financer, the vehicle should have been handed over to the complainant after obtaining the parking charges. The learned counsel, however, stated that they were not required to pay the parking charges, because when the complainant went to collect the vehicle, he found that certain parts were missing.

Learned counsel for the respondent Finance Company, however, stated that they were prepared to hand over the vehicle to the complainant, once the parking charges are paid by him.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The facts as admitted by both the parties are that there was default in the repayment of the instalments of the loan raised from the OP Finance Company by the complainant. However, within a few days of the vehicle being seized, a sum of Rs.82,500/- as the amount overdue was paid, following which, the Financer ordered the release of the vehicle on 08.05.2008. It has come on record, however, that when the GPA holder went to collect the vehicle from the parking area, he found many important/major parts of the vehicle missing. The financer did try to fit in some old parts in the vehicle, but the GPA holder refused to accept the delivery, till proper parts had been fitted in the vehicle. It is clear, therefore, that the stand taken by the complainant for the delivery of the vehicle alongwith proper parts is not unfair by any standard.

In proceedings before this Commission, the OP Finance Company have filed their detailed counter reply to the grounds of the revision petition, in which they stated that the petitioner was a chronic defaulter and that the vehicle remained in the custody of the OP Finance Company, as the petitioner had failed to pay the parking charges and that he had filed the present revision petition to avoid making such payment. The OP have also stated that the petitioner could have taken the truck in possession by paying necessary default instalments and parking charges and then pursued his grievances as per law, rather than allowing the condition of the truck to deteriorate.

It is also alleged that the market value of the motor parts alleged to have been stolen is more than the value of the vehicle. The OP Financer has also stated that since the truck was being used for commercial purpose, the present complaint was not maintainable. Moreover, the agreement had been entered between them and the complainant Kulwant Singh Panesar, whereas the vehicle was transferred subsequently to Sunil Kumar Thakur, who was not a party to the hypothecation agreement.

After a close consideration of the points raised by the OP Financer and after examining the entire material on record, it is clear that the OP Financer have not been able to offer any valid explanation about the alleged loss of parts of the vehicle, when the GPA holder went to collect the same after repayment of the defaulted instalments to them. It was the duty of the OP Financer to ensure that the vehicle was returned in a proper condition. The complainant has been put to huge financial loss during all these orders, as the OP Financer could not provide the vehicle to him with proper parts within the same. Once the default had been cleared by the complainant, there was no justification on the part of the OP Financer to retain the vehicle with them and they should have taken all necessary steps to return the vehicle in a proper condition to the complainant. Since no evidence has been produced by the respondent/OP on record, which may indicate that vehicle was in a fit condition when the GPA holder went to collect the same from the parking yard after making repayment of the defaulted amount, it is evident that the liability to make payment of parking charges could not be thrust upon the complainant. The order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, perverse in the eyes of law.

Based on the above discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the OP Financer is directed to ensure that the vehicle is returned to the complainant forthwith. Since the vehicle had to remain in the parking yard for the failure of the OP Financer to prevent the loss of the parts of the vehicle, the complainant shall not be required to pay any parking charges for the same. Moreover, since the complainant has been put to huge loss due to non-return of the vehicle in time, the respondent/OP shall be liable to pay a lumpsum compensation of 50,000/- to him instead of 7,500/- as allowed by the State Commission. The OP Financer shall ensure that the vehicle is returned to the complainant within eight weeks in terms of this order and the amount as indicated above duly paid. It is clarified, however, that the OP Financer shall have a right to recover his balance monthly instalments in terms of the loan advanced to the complainant, if not already paid. The revision petition stands disposed off accordingly.