RPG ITOCHU FINANCE LTD. vs Ramesh Chand

THIS is a review petition filed by the respondent - Shri Ramesh Chand praying for the review of the order dated 13th November, 2006 passed by this Commission in R.P. No. 1207 of 2004.

FACTS of the case, in brief, according to the complainant are that the complainant-Ramesh Chand-OP No. 1 signed the hire purchase agreement on 21.5.1998 with M/s. RPG Itochu Finance Ltd., whereby a Maruti Van was financed for Rs. 1,60,000 . He made the payment of 29 instalments of Rs. 4,936 each to the opposite parties whereas the payment of two instalments amounting to Rs. 15,000 was made to Satish Kumar on 30.10.2000 and Satish Kumar asked for another Rs. 2,000 and agreed to give receipt after receiving the said amount. Despite this on 18.11.2000, the opposite parties illegally snatched the vehicle. The complainant had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge and the opposite parties agreed to produce the vehicle snatched, which on inspection was found to be worthless. Hence, it was not taken back by the complainant. Complainant prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay for Rs. 5 lakh as compensation as he could not use the vehicle after paying more than Rs. 1,43,144 (29 instalments) @ Rs. 4,936 and margin money of Rs. 35,597 total Rs. 2,10,106 being paid and claimed other charges of Rs. 31,365 with interest @ 18%. The opposite parties in their reply had taken preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and there is no privity of contract with the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and the complainant is not a consumer as per C P Act and they had denied all the allegations made by the complainant.

The District Forum upheld the complaint and granted relief to the complainant. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum the opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same. Hence the Financiers filed a revision petition. After going through the records of the case and hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person, this Commission held that the complainant had committed default in payment of instalments and accordingly, the Finance Company which is the revision petitioner was within its right to repossess the vehicle as per Clause 11(a)(i) of the Higher Purchase Agreement which is quoted below : "Clause 11(a)(i)-In case the hirer shall, during the continuance of this agreement do or suffer any of the following acts or things viz., either; Fail to pay any of the hiring instalments within the stipulated time whether demanded or not. Then on the occurrence of any such event the rights of the hirer under this agreement shall forthwith stand terminated ipso facto without any notice to the hirer and all the instalments previously paid by the hirer shall be absolutely forfeited to the owner who shall thereupon be entitled to enter any house or place where the said vehicle(s), may then be, remove and retake possession of the same either themselves or (the owner) can appoint any outside agency to seek repossession of the said vehicle(s)."

THIS Commission''s decision was based on the following judgments : (i) Manager, St. Mary''s Hire Purchase (P) Ltd. v. N.A. Jose, III (1995) CPJ 58 (NC). (ii) Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others v. Sudhir Mehra, VI (2001) SLT 312=III (2001) CCR 232 (SC)=(2001) 7 SCC 417. (iii) Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd v. Jagmander Singh and Another, II (2006) SLT 166=II (2006) BC 108 (SC)=(2006) 2 SCC 598. Thrust of the above judgments is that repossession is clearly permissible in terms of the hire purchase agreement.

AGGRIEVED by the order, the complainant has filed this review petition stating that there is error apparent on the face of the record. He adduced the following grounds in his revision petition : Some material issue still undetermined on account of filing of false and misleading evidence by the petitioner No.1: interfered with the administration of justice. Deponent on behalf of petitioner No. 1: stranger to agreement. For only 2 instalments due respondent lost both money and car: unjustified and opposed to public policy and CPA and unconstitutional. No substantial arrears : clearly distinguishable from the case cited. Repossession is by way of snatch/criminal force: not by due process of law: Petitioner not of clean hands. Agreement stipulating snatching of vehicle even after payment of 2/3rd amount: Void contract as opposed to public policy and general interest of public. Ignites wider questions of law and matter of public importance. No prior notice from petitioner: notice can not be waived. The review power vested in the Commission is limited. In this connection it is worthwhile to reproduce Section 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : "Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Sub-section (1), the National Commission shall have the power to review any order made by it, when there is an error apparent on the face of record."

It is clear from the records that there was default in payment of instalment. Further, parties had signed the contract, which included the crucial Clause No. 11 which authorises the financier to repossess the vehicle in case of default.

WHAT the complainant basically wants is rewriting of the whole order.

WE do not see any error apparent on the face of the record. In view of the above, the review petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.