MAGMA FINCORP LTD. vs SACHIN KUMAR SINGH

Mr. Upendra Yogesh, learned proxy counsel for learned counsel for the petitioner appears in the morning. He states that main counsel will come at 1.15 p.m. It is 1.20 p.m. Now, he submits that his main counsel has gone to get his child admitted in school. He will not be available today.

Adjournment is granted, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs, which be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

At this stage, he submits that his counsel will be appearing today at 2.00 p.m.

The matter will be taken up at 2.00 p.m.

The case taken up at 2.00 p.m.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent present. Shri Sachin Kumar Singh, the complainant, purchased a truck in the sum of Rs.9,63,595/-, after taking financial assistance of Rs.7,46,000/- from M/s Magma Fincorp Limited/OP. The down payment was made by the complainant in the sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. The complainant was to repay the total loan amount with interest in 44 installments. The complainant paid instalments from March, 2012 to November, 2012. This is an admitted fact that the complainant paid total sum (installments) of Rs.1,17,643/-. Due to financial hardship, he could not repay the rest of amount. The OP seized the truck in question on 4.11.2012. Thereafter, notices were sent to the petitioner to pay the rest of the amount otherwise, the vehicle would be sold vide notice dated 20.12.2012 and legal notice was sent on 20.4.2013. Thereafter, the truck was sold for a paltry amount of Rs.3,30,000/- on 7. 1.2014. The date of sale of truck was not informed to the complainant and the OP took inordinate delay in selling the truck that is more than a year.

The District Forum passed the following order: "Under the circumstances, this complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs.2,17,595/- (Two lacs seventeen thousand five hundred ninety five) only, the down payment/margain money to the complainant which was paid by the complainant at time of purchase of the vehicle. OP is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) only, towards compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainant by adopting illegal trade practice and for deficient in providing service. OP is to pay the total amount of Rs.2,37,595/- (Rs. Two lacs thirty seven thousand five hundred ninety five) only to the complainant within 45 days of this order. In default, OP is to pay interest on the said amount of Rs.2,37,595/- @ 10% per annum form the date of repossession of the vehicle i.e. from 04.11.2012 till date of payment. OP the Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. is not entitled to get any amount from the complainant as claimed."

The order passed by the District Forum was confirmed by the State Commission.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP. First of all, he submits that this was a commercial transaction. The complaint is conspicuously silent about this fact. Secondly, he submitted that they have followed the procedure and given him notices to pay the amount but he did not turn up and paid the amount. He submits that the entire fault lies at the door of the complainant. The complainant waddled out of the commitments made by him in the agreement, as such, he deserves no mercy. He contended that the order passed by the District Forum is untenable.

We are not impressed by the arguments urged by learned counsel for the petitioner/OP. The complainant drove the vehicle for eight months only. For that, he has already paid a sum of

Rs.1,17,643/-. Suck like trucks can be hired on this amount only. The sale was made in a hush-hush manner. A vehicle of Rs. 9 lakhs was sold for meagre amount of Rs.3.30 lakhs. It is clear that the OP was working in cahoots with the purchaser of the truck. However, we find that the truck was seized in accordance with law, as per the law laid down in Surya Pal Singh v. Siddha Vinayak Motors & Anor. III (2012) CPJ 4 (SC) wherein it was held: "2.This Court vide its judgment in Trilok Singh & Ors. V. Satya Deo Tripathi AIR 1979 SC 850 , has categorically held that "Under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the financier is the real owner of the vehicle, therefore, there cannot be any allegation against him for having the possession of the vehicle. This view was again reiterated in K.A. Mathai @Babu & Anr. V. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., 1996(7) SCC 212 ; Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan v. S. K. Saraf, IX (1998) SLT 477=IV (1998) CCR 118 (SC)=1999(1) SCC 119 ; Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. V. Sudhir Mehra, VI (2001) SLT 883 = III(2001) CCR 232 (SC)=2001(7) SCC 417 , following the earlier judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. The State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1178; Smt. Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., I (2001) SLT 26=I(2001) CCR 9 (SC)=2001(2)SCC 17 and Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commisioner, V(2005) SLT 195 =III(2005) CCR 8 (SC) =CCE 2005(4) SCC 146."

There is no evidence that this transaction is commercial. The petitioner used it for his own personal benefit. There is no evidence on record that he was having more trucks and the driver was different from the complainant himself.

There is no merit in this revision petition, therefore, the same is dismissed.