SURENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL vs TELCO FINANCE LTD.

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint No. 264/2003 dismissing the complaint.

FACTS not in dispute are that the complainant-appellant obtained one Tata Truck No. CG 06 8284 by obtaining finance from the O.P.-respondents under a hire purchase agreement. An amount of Rs. 9,25,000 was obtained and an agreement executed. Instalments for repayment were due from 11.7.2001 to 11.5.2004. It is also claimed that in all Rs. 5,70,000 have been repaid. It is further averred that the complainant-appellant was being harassed from time to time by the OP-respondents and this resulted in default and non-payment of some loan instalments. The truck was seized by the O.P.-respondents on 14.11.2002 only one day after paying Rs. 2,00,000 to the OP-respondents. On further payment of Rs. 10,251 it was released on 22.11.2002. Again the vehicle was seized after 5 days and released in the third week of December. Again the truck was seized on 9.4.2003 without any prior notice. It is alleged that the complainant-appellant has suffered huge loss due to the intimidation and frequent seizure of the vehicle despite making regular payments of instalments. It is prayed that the O.P.-respondents be restraiend from auctioning the said vehicle and directed to return it to the complainant-appellant. O.P.-respondents in reply have stated that the complainant-appellant was irregular in payment of the hire purchase instalments. He had repaid only 8 loan instalments as against 17 instalments. Therefore, the vehicle was seized as per the terms of the agreement. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint be filed. Questions for consideration befoure us are: 1. Whether the complainant-appellant is a consumer under the Act? 2. Whether the O.P.-respondents can be held liable for deficiency in service, for seizing the vehicle in question?

Respondents have stated in their reply that the complainant-appellant had purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose, therefore, the complaint does not lie. It was also submitted that the fact that the complainant-appellant had obtained finance for two trucks further strengthens this objection. On the other hand the complainant-appellant has categorically stated in the complaint that he had obtained the vehicle in question for earning his livelihood. We find that the dispute relates to the financal service of lending for purchse of the vehicle in question. The point involved has been elaborately discussed and settled by the National Commission in the matter of Harsolia Motors v. National Insurance Company, I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC). Therefore, the objection on this count deserves to be overruled.

HIRE purchase agreement in question is on record which authorises the financier to repossess the vehicle in case of default in repayment of loan instalments. No statement of account showing details of repayment of loan instalments is filed by the complainant-appellant. The said statement is disputed by the complainant-appellant. Admittedly the complainant-appellant has defaulted several times. Learned Counsel for the appellant cited several orders of the State Commissions. In reply the learned Counsel for the O.P.-respondents relied on II (2006) SLT 166=2006 (1) Supreme 708, Managing Director, Orix Auto Fianance (India) Ltd. v. Mr. Jagmandar Singh & Anr., reported in Supreme Today Part 24-2006 page 708. Relevant portion is reproduced below : "If agreements permit the financier to take possession of the financed vehicles, there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken. Of course, the hirer can avail such statutory remedy as may be available. But mere fact that possession has been taken cannot be a ground to contend that the hirer is prejudiced."

SAID judgment of the Apex Court has clearly endorsed the rights of the financier in respect of repossessing the vehicles in case of default by the hirer. In view of the above, the appeal to be devoid of merit and does not succeed. Impugned order is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.