MOHAN LAL Vs. RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANDER Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.13/2006 by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby the complaint is dismissed by holding that there is no merit in the complaint. Parties hereinafter are to be referred as per their status.

(2.) THE facts of the case within narrow compass are that the complainant had got financed a truck No.HP -13 -0274 from opposite party No.1 for an amount Rs. 2,50,000/ - and was required to pay the said loan in 35 equal installments of Rs. 10,100/ -. Further averments in the complaint were to the effect that he was regularly defraying the loan installments to the opposite parties, and could not defray the loan installment for the month of August, 2004, which was defrayed by him in the month of November, 2004 and thereafter did not commit any default. It was also alleged that despite continuously defraying the installments, the opposite parties, on 15.12.2005 took away the vehicle from the road in the odd hours of night without intimating him, which action on the part of the opposite parties clearly amounts to an unfair trade practice Hence deficiency of service had been alleged on the part of opposite parties.

(3.) THIS complaint was contested and resisted by the opposite parties, wherein preliminary objections vis -a -vis maintainability of the complaint was taken and on merits, it was pleaded that as per agreement, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - was sanctioned as a loan/financed amount and the total agreement value was assessed as Rs. 3,64,525/ - which was to be repaid in 35 monthly installments of Rs. 10,415/ -. It was further pleaded that the complainant did not defray the loan installments timely and committed default and a sum of Rs. 1,85,088/ - was still recoverable from the complainant. However, it was admitted that the possession of the vehicle was taken on 15.12.2005, in the presence of the complainant despite the fact that the complainant did not defray the loan installments and several legal notices were issued in this behalf to the complainant. Hence, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.