Ziaul Haque vs The LAndT Finance Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.11.2013, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred as ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. FA/745/2012, The L&T Finance Limited & Anr. v. Sk. Ziaul Haque, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 3.5.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur in complaint case No. 124/2011, allowing the said complaint, was set aside. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 12,20,000 from the respondents/opposite parties for purchase of a truck for self -employment, under a loan agreement on condition to repay the loan with interest in 47 instalments. The petitioner/complainant made a down payment of Rs. 1 lakh on 14.1.2010 and it was agreed that he would pay a sum of Rs. 13,640 on 14.2.2010, and then, he will pay instalments of Rs. 34,500 each from 14.3.2010 to 14.12.2013 towards liquidation of loan. The opposite parties delivered a chassis and engine to the complainant, who got the body of the truck built at a cost of Rs. 2.5 lakh and also got the registration done bearing No. WB -33A/8885 from the Regional Transport Office, Paschim Medinipur on payment of requisite fees and taxes amounting to Rs. 45,000. The truck was also insured after making a payment of Rs. 19,000 towards Insurance charges. The said truck met with an accident on 31.1.2011 and got damaged. The petitioner submitted his claim before the Insurance Company for claiming damages. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the accident, he was not in a position to make repayment of few instalments of loan to the opposite parties. The vehicle was repossessed by the opposite parties on 15.9.2011. The petitioner then filed the consumer complaint in question, requesting for a direction to return the vehicle and payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000 in his favour. The District Forum, vide order dated 3.5.2011, allowed the said complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 4,52,461 along with the cost of the body and cost of registration of the truck, amounting to Rs. 2.95 lakh along with interest @ 9% per annum and also to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation towards harassment. The opposite parties filed appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission, which was decided vide impugned order dated 29.11.2013. The State Commission allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum, saying that the complainant was bound to pay scheduled instalments as per the terms of loan -cum -hypothecation agreement and in default of making payment, the financier had every right to repossess the vehicle. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

AT the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the order, passed by the State Commission should be set aside and that passed by the District Forum should be restored, because forcible repossession of the vehicle constituted deficiency in service. The learned Counsel has drawn our attention to an order passed by the National Commission in Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi, as reported in : III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC), in which it has been stated as follows: "45. In a case when the vehicle was repossessed by use of force and, thereafter, sold without informing the complainant, in our view, it would be unjust to direct the consumer to pay the balance amount, as alleged by the financier to be outstanding. If such a relief is given to the money lender/financier, it would be unjust enrichment to the money lender and against equity. That question may arise for consideration only if the complainant willingly surrenders the vehicle for sale and for recovery of the outstanding amount. Then, in such cases, consumer dispute would not arise."

We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage. It is an admitted case of the petitioner/complainant that he defaulted in the repayment of the loan instalments to the opposite parties, because of which they repossessed the vehicle. The existence of the agreement between the parties and its terms and conditions have also not been denied by the petitioner/complainant anywhere. In view of this situation, it is held that the District Forum took an erroneous view in allowing refund of a sum of Rs. 4,52,461 along with the cost of the body and cost of registration of the truck to the complainant. However, the order passed by the State Commission is based on a rational analysis of the facts and circumstances on record. It shall not be justified to burden the opposite party with the said compensation, in view of the fact that the petitioner/complainant admitted his default in making repayment of loan. It is held, therefore, that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error that may merit interference at the revisional stage. The present revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed at admission stage and the impugned order passed by the State Commission upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.