LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE Vs. RAFIQ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present revision petition has been filed by Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in favour of Shri Rafiq Ahmed, the Respondent in this case.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case according to the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum is that he had taken a loan from the Petitioner for financing the purchase of a RTV for his own business. The vehicle was financed for Rs.5,40,450/- and he was given a discount of Rs.10,000/- as per mutual settlement between the parties. The Respondent paid Rs.1,70,449/- in cash to the Petitioner for which three receipts for Rs.50,000/- dated 13.09.2002, Rs.94,149/- dated 16.09.2002 and Rs.26,300/- dated 20.09.2002 were issued. The balance amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was to be paid to the Petitioner in 35 equal monthly installments of Rs.14,029/- each. Complainant/ Respondent says that he paid 27 installments through cash and cheque, on 31.05.2005. On 31.05.2005, when the Respondent was out of station and when the vehicle was on the road, the Petitioner with the help of three or four persons took forcible possession of the vehicle after pushing out the driver. This was objected to by the Respondents son who was present in the vehicle. Respondent on his return to Delhi on 03.02.2005 met the Petitioner and objected to the illegal and forcible possession of the vehicle and requested for its release. Petitioner declined to do so. Aggrieved by this action, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking Rs.2.00 lakh for mental harassment besides a direction to the Petitioner to hand back the vehicle to him.

(3.) The Petitioner on the other hand, totally denied most of the contentions of the Respondent. While admitting sanction of the loan as stated by the Respondent, it was clarified that the loan was repayable in 36 and not 35 installments as is evident from the written agreement between the parties. Respondent had also given 36 post dated cheques. Further, it is incorrect to state that the Respondent had paid 27 EMIs, because it is evident from the Record of Accounts that only 23 monthly installments had been paid. Some post dated cheques for the months of April, June, July were dishonoured and fresh payments for these was made at a later date by the Respondent. Again cheques for the months of November, December 2004 and January 2005 were also dishonoured and despite repeated requests by the Petitioner including written reminders on 07.12.2004 and 27.12.2004 no payments were received. Petitioner was therefore, constrained to send a loan termination notice by registered post to the Respondent on 10.01.2005. It was also stated in this notice that necessary legal action including repossession of the vehicle would be initiated by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner initiated the process of repossessing of the vehicle in accordance with the law and in conformity with the loan agreement. Petitioner also informed the local police on 31.01.2005 regarding the repossession of the vehicle. It is also incorrect that the vehicle was forcibly re-possessed. In fact, the complainant voluntarily surrendered the vehicle and also gave a written statement stating that he was doing so of his own accord without any pressure since he was not able to pay the dues against the loans. Post re-possession, the Petitioner again wrote to the Respondent informing him that an amount of Rs.1,92,526/- was outstanding against him and if he does not make the required payment within seven days from the date of the receipt of the letter, the company would be at liberty to dispose off the vehicle in consonance with the agreement to recover the outstandings amounts. Further, the Respondent will be liable to pay the deficit if the amount realized is insufficient to clear the outstanding amount. The vehicle was finally sold to M/s A S Motors for Rs. 1,01,000/- on 25.02.2005 at a price below the depreciated value of the vehicle (which is @ 20% each year).