S.B. NAVEEN KUMAR vs RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. & ANR

Sh. S.B. Naveen Kumar, the complainant is a physically handicapped person. He is transacting the business of Real Estate. He purchased a Trident Hyundai Car for a consideration of Rs.09,08,600/-. Reliance Capital Limited -OP-1 and Branch Office, Reliance Capital- OPs-1 & 2, respectively, agreed to advance loan to the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,34,500/- by down payment. OP-2 financed a sum of Rs.6,74,100/- to the complainant. It was agreed that the said amount would be refunded in 36 monthly instalments @ Rs.23,159/-. This is an indisputable fact that the complainant paid 10 instalments upto August 2008, totalling

to Rs.2,31,590/-. Due to some financial stringency, he could not pay two installments - i.e. for September and October 2008. He made a request to OP-2 that he would pay the amounts in November 2008. However, he waddled out of his commitments.

Consequently, on 22.11.2008, the OPs forcibly seized the vehicle along with its accessories i.e., Sony handicam, worth Rs.45,000/-, Sony Digital Camera, worth Rs.18,000/-, Rayban glass, worth Rs.4,000/-, show bag, dress bag and 140 CDs, worth Rs.14,000/- and original RC book, original insurance and 20 property documents. It is contended that thereafter, the complainant requested the OP-2 to receive the due instalments and release the vehicle but they declined to do the needful. He purchased alternative car for transacting his business and had to incur extra amount.

Thereafter, the complainant received a notice from the OP that while shifting the car, the said car met with an accident on 29.11.2008 in the parking yard. This intimation was given to the complainant after one month. The complainant refused to take back the vehicle which had met with accident. After sending notice, he filed a complaint before the District Forum. In the complaint, the complainant stated that he had already paid a sum of Rs.4,66,090/- and he was not ready to take back the accidental car. In the alternative, he claimed total value of the car and the accessories kept in the car as compensation in terms of the money due to the above said deficiencies in service. He contended that he should be granted Rs.15,00,000/- along with the costs and litigation expenses.

The OPs contested this case.

The District Forum partly allowed the claim and directed the OPs-1 & 2 to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.4,66,090/- to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of the said order, jointly and severally. It further directed that after elapse of 30 days, it will carry interest @ 6% p.a., and awarded costs of present proceedings from the Opposite Parties in the sum of Rs.2,000/-.

Aggrieved by that order, the OPs filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the OPs made the following submissions. The petitioner is a defaulter in paying the instalments. As per agreement entered into between the parties, the OPs served the notice upon the complainant and seized the vehicle, as per Law. It was further admitted that the car met with an accident in the parking yard and the same was intimated to the jurisdictional police. The complainant was asked to get the car repaired but it failed to do so. The vehicle was used for commercial purposes.

On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he did not receive any notice, though, it was one of the conditions stipulated in the agreement. He further submitted that he was given intimation of accident, one month, after its occurrence.

We see force in these arguments in a measure. The OPs had issued a letter dated 16.09.2008 calling upon the complainant to pay the EMIs but he failed to do so. It is thus clear that the vehicle was seized, in accordance with Law.

The petitioner did not pursue the matter of accident and made claim before the Insurance Company. There was no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the OPs. Only complainant could have invoked the Insurance policy. It is clear that the estimate towards the repair was fixed at Rs.6,47,533/-. Consequently, the said loss was caused to the OPs. The OPs financed a sum of Rs.6,74,100/- and suffered the loss up to Rs.6,47,533/-.

However, the other side of the coin ought not be over-looked. To top it all, it is difficult to fathom, how and why, did the accident take place. There is no inkling on the record that the accident took place, while the vehicle was being seized. The facts and circumstances of accident were kept under the hat. After seizure of the vehicle, the OPs had no authority to drive it or use it, at all. Secondly, how much this big loss, assessed at more than Rs.6.00 lakhs, was caused. Was it a major accident, and why, with a seized vehicle? Thirdly, the intimation should have been given to the complainant, immediately on the nail, but the insurance company, pursued the matter in a lackadaisical manner. The insurance company will refuse to take notice after the expiry of one month.

The complainant made down payment in the sum of Rs.2,34,500/- and paid instalments in the sum of Rs.2,31,590/-. Due to wee bit negligence on the part of the complainant and OPs'' major role, the vehicle in question, could not be repaired. It is also clear that the vehicle was purchased, on 30.08.2007. It was seized on 22.11.2008, meaning thereby that the petitioner/complainant could drive the vehicle, for more than a year.

In the result, we find that the complainant will not claim the car. The car will remain in the possession of the OPs-1 & 2 because, otherwise, it will entail a lengthy procedure. They can dispose of the same. However, in lieu of that car, they will pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant, with interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization. The matter stands disposed of.