Surendra Kumar Agarwal vs Telco Finance Limited

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-Petitioner, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the District Forum'' for short), has filed the present Revision Petition against the Order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Chhattisgarh Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short, ''the State Commission'') wherein and whereunder the Appeal was dismissed.

SHORTLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of the case are:

IT is stated in the Complaint that the petitioner/complainant purchased one Tata Truck bearing registration No. CG-04/ZC 7384 by obtaining finance of Rs. 6,15,000 from respondents under a Hire Purchase Agreement. That the instalments for repayment were due from 2.12.2000 to 2.10.2003. That the petitioner had repaid Rs. 4,97,017 out of the total loan amount. That the petitioner was being harassed from time to time by the respondents which resulted in default and non-payment of some loan instalments. That the respondent forcibly seized the said truck on 17.3.2003 due to which petitioner suffered huge loss. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Forum.

ON being served, respondents filed their Written Statement stating that the petitioner was irregular in payment of the hire purchase instalments. That the petitioner did not pay the instalments on dates due and was also a defaulter. That the vehicle was seized as per the terms of the Agreement. Thus, denying the allegations made in the Complaint, respondents prayed for its dismissal.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the Complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, relying upon the Judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India in Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited v. Shri Jagmandar Singh and Anr., reported in II (2007) CPJ 45 (SC)=127 (2006) DLT 278 (SC)=II (2006) BC 108 (SC)=II (2006) SLT 166=(2006) 1 SCC 708, dismissed the Appeal. It was held that no statement of account showing details of repayment of loan instalments is filed by the petitioner/complainant. That the petitioner had defaulted several times. That the said Judgment of the Apex Court has clearly endorsed the rights of the finance in respect of repossessing the vehicles in case of default by the hirer.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner has filed this Revision Petition.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

IT is not disputed before us that the petitioner had raised a loan of Rs. 6,15,000 to purchase the truck. No Statement of Account showing repayment of loan instalments has been filed by the petitioner. It was admitted before the State Commission that the petitioner had defaulted several times in making the payment on the dates when it was due. Further, it is not disputed that as per Hire Purchase Agreement, the financer was authorized to repossess the vehicle in case of default in repayment of the loan instalments. Supreme Court of India in Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited case (supra), has held that the financer can repossess the vehicle if the agreement permits the financer to take possession of the financed vehicle. There is nothing on record to show that the vehicle was repossessed forcibly. Mere fact that possession was taken by the respondents cannot be the ground to contend that the hirer is prejudiced. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.

FOR the reasons sated above, we find no merit in this Revision Petition and, accordingly, dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs. R.P. dismissed.