MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Vs. SAMARENDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the OP/Financing Company against the judgment and order allowing the complaint case on contest thereby directing it to return the truck bearing registration No. WB -33A -4466 to the complainant along with the direction to the complainant to pay the stipulated instalments in terms of the hire purchase agreement entered into by and between the complainant and the OP/Financing Company from the month of February, 2010 plus Rs. 10,100 per month towards the outstanding dues of Rs.2,23,647 payable by him till the same is liquidated.

(2.) THE facts which are not disputed in this appeal may be summarized as under: The complainant took a loan of Rs. 9 lacs from the OP/Financing Company for purchasing the aforesaid truck for which a hire purchase agreement was entered into by and between the complainant and the OP/Financing Company. The copy of the said hire purchase agreement has been filed in the complaint case before the Forum. It transpires therefrom that the complainant agreed to repay the loan by 58 instalmentsthe first of which to be Rs. 10,585 and the remaining instalments @ Rs. 23,900 per month commencing from 20th April, 2007. It has further revealed from the copies of the various receipts issued by the OP/Financing Company that the complainant deposited various amounts with the OP/Financing Company towards instalments and delay payment charges in respect of delayed payment of instalments till 30th June, 2009. The statement of accounts as disclosed by the OP/Financing Company reveals that the complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs.5,60,558 towards instalments and delay payment charges as above till 30th June,2009. In these state of affairs when the complainant went to the office of the financing company on 30th June, 2009 for depositing the monthly instalments he was asked to deposit an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,20,047 towards defaulted instalment, the overdue interest and delay payment charges. As the aforesaid amount was not deposited the OP/Financing Company took forcible possession of the said truck with the help of their musclemen from the road on 27th August, 2009. Such fact of forceful repossession of the truck in question has not been disputed by the financing company. The complaint has accordingly been filed for return of the truck in question to the complainant and for other consequential reliefs.

(3.) IN this appeal the OP/Financing Company have not disputed the questions of fact as stated above. It has only been urged that the OP/Financing Company was absolutely within its right to take repossession of the vehicle in question from the custody of the complainant by exercising their right as per the hire purchase agreement entered into by and between the parties in respect of the said vehicle. Next it was urged that the vehicle in question was sold in the month of October, 2009 soon after the OP/Financing Company took repossession of the same on 27.8.2009. The complaint was filed at a much later date on 4th November, 2009 and the interim order that was passed on the self -same date restraining the OP/Financing Company from dealing with the said vehicle in question could not have any effect on the sale of the said vehicle in the month of October, 2009. Therefore, the impugned order directing return of the said truck to the complainant should not be sustained.