GANGU RAM Vs. SAI AUTOMOBILES & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 201/2007, dated 22.7.2009, whereby in the interest of justice, it was ordered that the complainant shall in case of some default is there in defrayment of some of loan instalments by him to the opposite party No. 2, then he shall furnish an undertaking to the opposite party No. 2 to defray such outstanding financial liabilities within a period of three months. The undertaking shall also contain a recital that he shall not commit default in the payment of any of the further outstanding loan instalments. On such undertaking being furnished by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2, the latter shall release the vehicle after the entire arrears of loan instalments in compliance with the undertaking is defrayed by the opposite party to it. Parties are being referred to hereinafter as per their status in the complaint.

(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record of this case are that the complainant who is owner of vehicle Tempo -Trax -Kargo being registration No. HP -03B -591 which was purchased by him from opposite party No. 1 and was got financed from opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 4,40,000. Further averments in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant was repaying the loan instalments to the opposite party No. 2 but opposite party No. 2 repossessed the vehicle on 7.5.2007 on the false ground of non -repayment of financial liabilities by him to the opposite party No. 2. Hence it was contended that the repossession of the vehicle was unwarranted which amounts to unfair trade practice on their part.

(3.) THIS complaint was resisted and contested by the opposite party No. 1 who filed its written version and admitted the version of the complainant as regards the purchase of the vehicle from opposite party No. 1 and financing of the same from opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that no agreement has been executed between the opposite party No. 2 and the complainant and if any agreement was executed between the complainant and opposite party No. 2, it is not related to opposite party No. 1 as it has been financed by opposite party No. 2.