DHARAMPAL SHARMA Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh. Dharampal Sharma, the complainant/petitioner purchased two Tata 407 City Ride buses. He availed finance from the Tata Motors after executing a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. He paid a sum of Rs. 1,58,354 from his own accord and the balance loan amount of Rs. 11,20,020 was to be repaid in 46 instalments. He was to pay a total instalment in the sum of Rs. 23,820 for the two buses every month. The case of the complainant is that his son was looking after the vehicles and he was regularly depositing the instalment and tax etc. in respect of both the buses. Thereafter, the son of the complainant was falsely caught in a criminal case. Again, due to financial constraints, he could not deposit the monthly instalments as per loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. The Counsel for the petitioner had no hesitation in admitting that the petitioner has been a defaulter.

(2.) This is an admitted fact that the opposite party sent a legal notice dated 10.2.2007. To the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay the arrears or to return the vehicle and handover the possession of the said vehicle to the opposite party. The petitioner had acknowledged that notice by sending a reply through an Advocate which bore no date. In the said notice, it was mentioned that:

(3.) It is surprising to note that this notice does not bear any date. When this reply was sent and received is the fact which is shrouded in mystery. The position would have started to jell, had it mentioned the date of its sending.