AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
LEARNED counsel for the parties present.
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner prays for waiving of costs of Rs.10,000/ - imposed on the last date, on the ground that due to first anniversary of his father''s death, he could not attend the proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. Therefore, the cost imposed is waived.
ARGUMENTS on merits heard. This is an admitted fact that the complainant, Mohd. Shamshad Khan waddled out of the commitments. He is a defaulter. Registered letters dated 1.3.2007, 7.5.2007 and 24.2.2010 were sent to him for payment of the amount. Despite these notices, he did not pay the installments. Consequently, the vehicle in question was repossessed legally. However, the petitioner/OP -Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. sold the vehicle without giving any further notice to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not necessary as per the agreement. The smartness of the petitioner further stands proved by not disclosing the amount for which the vehicle was sold. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he should be given time to take instructions in this regard. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not read the order properly. It was mentioned in the order itself that the amount was not disclosed. The purpose of the petitioner is to delay the case and to harass the complainant unnecessarily. Last time, counsel for the respondent/complainant had come all the way from Raipur. Costs of Rs.10,000/ - were imposed upon the petitioner because he could not appear due to first anniversary of his father''s death. Learned counsel for the respondent is kind enough in not accepting the said costs and now the petitioner wants another date for harassment and mental agony to the respondent.
IT appears that the complainant had run/used the vehicle for a period of four years. The total amount paid by him was Rs.1,98,640/ -. He has been granted a sum of Rs.80,335/ - by the State Commission though the value of the said vehicle assessed by the OP is Rs.1,50,000/ -.
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that a defaulter should not be awarded. He has cited an authority in Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Ltd. and Anr. vs. R. Kamalakannan, revision petition No. 2252 of 2013 decided on 11.2.2014, authored by me, where according to him the facts are similar but I am unable to agree with his contention. It clearly mentions that notice of sale was also given through telegram which fact has never been denied. The facts of this case are altogether different.
HE has also invited our attention towards judgments in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 5268 of 2013 titled as S. Mahadevaiah vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and ors. decided on 22.3.2013 wherein it was held: "On a revision filed by the respondents, the National Commission referred to true copies of the notices sent by the respondents to the petitioner and concluded that the vehicle was re -possessed after due notice. The National commission then referred to a large number of judgments of this Court and held that the District Forum and the State Commission committed serious error by awarding compensation to the petitioner on the ground that the respondents had re -possessed the vehicle without issuing notice. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record including copies of the notices sent by the respondents to the petitioner. In our view, the finding recorded by the National Commission that the vehicle was re -possessed after service of notice upon the petitioner is based on correct analysis of the documents produced by the parties and the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. "
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further notice is required if the opportunities are already given to the defaulter before repossession of the vehicle.
I am unable to locate substance in his frivolous argument. There is no such order passed by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned order. The Supreme Court has never exempted that notice should not be given before the sale of the vehicle.
THE order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. Rather it appears that he has given lesser amount to the complainant.
THE revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/ -, which be paid to the complainant within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise it will carry interest @10% per annum till its realisation.