Stifan Tigga vs Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd

SH . Stifan Tigga, the complainant in this case took loan in the sum of Rs.7,59,000/ - for purchase of a truck from M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., who were arrayed as OPs -1 and 2. The said loan amount was re -payable from 01.03.2003 in 35 monthly instalments @Rs.27,378/ -. The complainant paid the instalments regularly and where there was some delay, he paid penal interest till 02.03.2005. The OPs re -possessed the truck in question forcibly at the time when the truck was carrying coal from Gevra -Korba to Raigarh. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. Vide its order dated 24.01.2012, the District Forum observed: - "11. Xxxxxxx The letters which are attached in the case it is clear that when the installment of loan were not paid regularly then the OPs have sent the notice to the complainant that within seven days the complainant may come to the office and solve the dispute otherwise the disputed vehicle will be repossessed by the OPs. The OPs by giving notice have repossessed the vehicle and as per the account statement of the complainant and the documents which are filed it is clear that the truck was sold by giving the quotation and the disputed truck which was sold by the OPs and the amount which was received by the OPs was adjusted in the account of the complainant. Regarding the loaded coal the affidavit of Asst. Manager Jaishankar Shukla has been by the OPs. In this affidavit it is clearly mentioned that at the time of taking the vehicle in possession the coal was loaded in the vehicle the employees of the company Pawan Singh Rajpur, Deputy Manager M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Raigarh the coal was given to M/s MSP Steel and Power Ltd. Raigarh and the coal was given to the actual officer and in this regard receipt was also taken. The said receipts are kept in any other file and it has been lost which after so many efforts it''s not found. The complainant in rebuttal of the affidavit of Jaishankar Shukla has not filed any affidavit or document. Therefore it is clear that at the time of the possession of the vehicle the explanation given by the OPs is satisfactory."

THE State Commission passed the following order: - "10. Another contention of the appellant/complainant is that after repossession of the questioned vehicle it was reported to have been sold but there is no evidence of such sale. Since the respondent finance company in exercise of its right, as per the loan agreement, repossessed the questioned tractor owing to defaults on the part of appellant/complainant and took steps to adjust its outstanding dues then there remains dispute only about settlement of accounts between the parties which is not the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora.

Another contention of the appellant/complainant is that there is no evidence to the effect that coal loaded in the questioned truck was delivered to the concerned owner and receipt was obtained. The subject matter is not within the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora since the complaint is primarily against the finance company regarding repossession of the financed vehicle."

I am of the considered view that the case is hanging fire for the last more than a decade. This Commission has to see whether there is deficiency on the part of the OPs and decide the case accordingly. The complainant cannot be asked to go to the Civil Court at this late stage. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the complainant/petitioner has cited an authority reported in "Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. versus S. Vijayalaxmi, 2012 AIR(SC) 509]". However, that authority is not applicable to this case because both the Fora have come to the conclusion that the complainant waddled out of the commitments made in the contract despite he was given the due notice. Secondly, para Nos. 22 and 23 of the authority go to show that after the case property was sold and therefore, the directions of the District Forum should be complied with. Since the notice was given in this case, therefore, the following authorities cited by the respondents will be applicable to this case. "A. Anup sarmah versus Bhola nath Sharma and Ors. (SLP (CRL) No. 8907 of 2009)

a) Trilok Singh and Ors. Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, 1979 AIR(SC) 850 .

b) K. A. Mathai alias Babu and Anr. V. Kora Bibbikutty and Anr., 1996 7 SCC 212

c) Charanjit Singh Chadha and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Mehra, 2001 7 SCC 417.

B) Suryapal Singh versus Siddha Vinayaka Motors and Anr. (SLP (Civil) No. 5302/2012).

C) The Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. Vs. Shri Jagmander Singh and Anr. (SLP ( C) No.22535 of 2004)

A bare look on the record clearly goes to show that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have tried to suppress the real facts from this Commission. First of all, they have filed the statement of accounts at a very late stage. Secondly, the respondents did not state for till how much period they have received the money. It is true that the complainant was to pay a total amount in the sum of Rs.9,58,238/ - including the interest, Rs.7,59,000/ - being the principal, the OPs have placed on record the statement of accounts. The statement goes to show that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,49,623/ - and a sum of Rs.78,477/ - was due to the complainant. This is an admitted fact that the OPs had sold the said vehicle for a sum of Rs.3,40,000/ -. Out of that amount, the OPs are entitled to Rs.78,477/ - after adjustment from Rs.3,40,000/ -, the complainant must get an amount in the sum of Rs.2,61,533/ -.

THE deficiency on the part of the OP stand proved by not paying the said amount. Again, deficiency on the part of respondents stand proved that before selling the said vehicle, it should have given notice to the complainant and given him an option to purchase the said vehicle. We are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,61,533/ -. The said amount be paid to the complainant/petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order alongwith interest @9% from the date of filing of this complaint before the District Forum till its realization. The complainant has been harassed and he had to face as many as three Tribunals, The coal loaded in vehicle has vanished into the thin air. Again OPs did not give the time to remove the coal. It smacks of arrogance, high hand handedness and cruelty on their part. Therefore, I further impose costs in the sum of Rs.50,000/ - upon the respondents, which will be paid within 90 days from the receipt of this order otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.