VIRENDRA KUMAR AILANI Vs. DISTT. CONSUMER PROTECTION FORUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: - (i) Issuing a writ order or direction, thereby directing the respondents not to dispose of the vehicle till the pendency of the complaint No. 431/2001 and the respondent No.7 be also directed not to transfer the vehicle in question. (ii) Passing any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Costs of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner. (iv) Respondents may also be directed to return the vehicle in the same manner in which it was forcibly taken from lawful possession of the petitioner.

(2.) SHRI Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased a chassis of " Ashok Leyland CG 1611" which is a loading truck and manufactured by the respondent No.2. Respondent No.6 was an authorised dealer for selling vehicle manufactured by respondent No.2. After taking delivery of chassis on 15.04.2000, the petitioner constructed the body and got it registered as MP 07 -G/3806. The petitioner also obtained loan for purchasing the said vehicle. It is contended that the respondents unauthorizedly and illegally took possession of the vehicle on 22.07.2001 and thereafter the vehicle is in their possession. After alleged illegal seizure of vehicle, the petitioner sent a legal notice. Respondents by communication dated 06.09.2001 (Annexure P/6) informed the petitioner that total outstanding amount is Rs.1,23,341 and it was advised to deposit the said amount. The petitioner personally met the officer and intended to deposit the said amount. However, since vehicle was not handed over to the the petitioner, the petitioner although provided the cheque of the said amount to the respondents, subsequently instructed the bank authority not to make the payment. By placing reliance on 2007 (2) SCC 711 (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and others) it is contended that petitioner's fundamental rights are infringed. Vehicle is forcibly taken from the petitioner by the muscle men, which hits article 21 of the constitution. The truck was the sole source of livelihood and, therefore, this petition be entertained.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.