SHRI RAM TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED. Vs. BIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESIDENT - Appellant has challenged the order of District Forum, Kullu, Camp at Manali in Consumer Complaint No. 103/2007 passed on 24.12.2007. While allowing the complaint, appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs to the respondent, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 11.7.2007 till payment, and cost of Rs. 2,000/ -. Facts on which learned counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing are, that the respondent purchased a Swaraj Mazda Truck. He paid the margin money of Rs. 1,41,000/ -, whereas balance sum of Rs. 3,58,000/ - was financed by the appellant financier. In this behalf, it may be worthwhile to mention that the margin money though was paid by the respondent, but it was routed through the appellant alongwith the finance provided by it Financed amount was repayable in 47 equated monthly' installments of Rs. 11,340/ - commencing from 21.7.2002. During the course of hearing it transpired that 37 installments were paid by the respondent regularly according to him, which position was seriously contested by learned counsel for the appellant. Similarly it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that only two installments were in default, i.e. of August and September, 2005. It was also the case of the respondent, that when the vehicle was repossessed on 19.9.2005 installment of August, 2005 only was in default and installment for the month of September, 2005 had not become payable. After repossessing the vehicle, it, was sold on 23.1.2006 for Rs. 1,60,000/

(2.) IN this background, complaint No. 103/2 -7 was filed by the respondent alleging deficiency in service against the appellant. His case was that without affording any opportunity to him to arrange for clearance of the defaulted amount, the vehicle was forcibly, wrongly and illegally repossessed by the appellant. In case opportunity had been provided to him, he would have paid the defaulted installment, and the remaining 9 installments would also have been regularly paid by him especially when major part of the finance raised by him from the appellant with interest had already been cleared. Receipt of 37 installments is not in dispute, what was challenged at the time of hearing of this appeal by Mr. Chandel on behalf of the appellant was, that the District Forum Kullu had no jurisdiction to have entertained, much less adjudicated upon the complaint. In addition to this, per him the District Forum below was in error when it held that original receipts were of the value of Rs. 4,12,000/ - because only Rs. 3,65,759/ - was paid by the respondent that too intermittently. After repossession of the vehicle notices Annexure RA dated 21.9.2005, R -5 dated 13.10.2005 and another notice dated 22.10.2005 was issued by his client. Finally it was urged that this being a matter of accounts cannot be adjudicated upon under the Consumer ,Protection Act, 1986, thus he prayed for allowing of the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, consequently dismissing the complaint. All these pleas were seriously resisted and contested by Mr. Ajay Chandel learned counsel for the respondent. Per him on the basis of the material on record particularly reply to complaint filed by the appellant and receipts filed by his client, no exception can be taken to the impugned order as it suffers from no infirmity in the eyes of law. Besides this, there was dispute of accounts as claimed on behalf of the appellant. Thus he prayed for dismissing the appeal with costs.

(3.) WE reject this stand of the appellant. Reason being that these things would have show that repossession was in accordant with law, thereafter there was transparency in subsequent dealing with the repossessed vehicle by the appellant. Transparency how the vehicle was dealt with by the appellant was necessary to show that its action was bonafide and reasonable. It would not have been fair only, but also in consonance with public policy.