CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE LTD Vs. JOGENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 3.5.2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called as 'District Forum' for short), in Complaint Case No. 126/ 07, whereby the complaint was allowed and the OPs were directed to return the vehicle of the complainant or in alternative to pay a sum of Rs. 8,50,000 together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, within a period of one month and to pay additional interest in case of default, together with cost of litigation Rs. 1,000. OP has preferred the appeal under consideration.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had obtained finance from the OPs / Finance Company and had purchased truck bearing No. C.G. 08 B 0927. As per averments of the complain the truck was purchased for earning livelihood by the complainant. The complainant was making regular repayment yet the truck was repossessed without any prior intimation, on 22.10.2007, hence the complainant suffered great mental harassment and financial problem and unnecessarily had to pay salary to the driver and conductor. It was averred that the complainant is entitled to get the truck back or to receive an amount equivalent to cost of the truck together with Rs. 1,68,000 towards damages. As the OPs failed to give the truck back, despite service of notice by the complainant, hence the complaint was filed.

(3.) RESISTING the complaint, the OPs averred that the complainant had purchased two trucks after obtaining finance from the OPs. Repayment of loan amount together with interest was to be made in instalments. From the very beginning the complaint was negligence towards repayment of instalments. The OPs had served notice dated 24.7.2007 for making payment, but as the amount was not paid, the vehicle was repossessed. After repossession also on 24.10.2007, notice was given for making payment, but the complainant refused to accept the registered notice sent by the complainant. Seven of the cheques given by the complainant were dishnored, hence the vehicle was repossessed and thus there was no deficiency in service committed by the OPs. It was averred that the complainant is not a consumer, as provided under Section (2)(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.