L & T FINANCE LTD Vs. VITHAL @ VITHOBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been filed against concurrent findings of two Fora below.

(2.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner who submitted before us that the vehicle in question was repossessed and sold in terms of Clause 11(1) of the hypothecation agreement consequent on default in making the payment of instalments which were due. In this connection, our attention was drawn to the letter dated 3.10.2009 asking the complainant to pay the entire amount due, failing which, the tractor in question would be sold. The complainant failed to pay the instalments due and as such the tractor was sold for a sum of Rs.2,15,000. It is urged that the Fora below erred in ordering payment of Rs. 1,57,100 after deducting 15% of the value of the vehicle which amounts to material irregularity.

(3.) According to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,76,780 was due as a result of which, the tractor in question was repossessed on 18.9.2009: Admittedly, the repossessed of the vehicle was effected by the petitioner without giving any notice. The repossession of the tractor was forcibly done by the petitioner. The Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v Prakash Kaur and Others,2007 2 SCC 741and ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Shanti Devi Sharma and Others, 2008 7 SCC 532, has deprecated the practice of forcible possession of the vehicle without serving notice of repossession. The matter was considered threadbare by this Commission in Citycorp Maruti Financal Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi, 2007 3 CPJ 161(NC). Repossession of a vehicle forcibly without serving any notice is voilation of principles of natural justice. After repossession of the vehicle the petitioner did not get the valuation of the tractor done by any expert nor sold the tractor by public auction or calling sealed tenders. The tractor was sold to a private party for Rs. 2,15,000. In fact, Clause 11(1) referred to above speaks of sale by public auction br by private contract at best available prices aecord-ing- to the prevailing marketing conditions. The petitioner has not taken adequate measures to ensure that the tractor in question was sold at the best available price according to prevailing market conditions nor has produced any data to justify that the tractor was sold at the best available price. In this set of facts, the Fora below had applied the principle of depreciation at the rate of 5% per year and deducting the same determined the value of the tractor as Rs. 3,33,887. The loan amount due as on the date of seizure of the tractor was Rs.1,76,780 after deducting the same from Rs.3,33,887, the Fora below have directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,57,100 to the complainant. In this set of facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the orders of the Fora below do not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as the orders of the Fora below are just, fair and equitable. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to interfere with the orders of the Fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.