INDUSIND BANK Vs. JAGTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition assails the order dtd. 21/3/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No.658 of 2016 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dtd. 12/2/2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, 'the District Commission') in CC No.102 of 2015. This order will also dispose of Revision Petition No.2803 of 2017 against order of the State Commission Punjab in FA/651/2016 dtd. 21/3/2017 which arises from the same order and is a cross appeal filed by the present respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant purchased a truck of Ashok Leyland, Model No.04/2011 which was registered as PB-46-K-1976 for a sum of Rs.19,87,000.00with finance from the petitioner bank for Rs.17,70,000.00 which was to be repaid in 48 monthly instalments starting from 21/6/2011 to 21/4/2015. According to the petitioner, the respondent defaulted in payments and, therefore, the petitioner bank repossessed his vehicle on 23/11/2012. The respondent approached the District Forum in CC No.102 of 2015 alleging that the vehicle had been repossessed without notice to him and that he had been declared to be a defaulter also without notice. It was alleged that the vehicle was sold for Rs.7,80,000.00 to a 3rd party without notice. The District Forum, vide its order dtd. 12/7/2016 in favour of the respondent, upheld that the vehicle had been repossessed without notice and the opposite party had not been declared a defaulter. Placing reliance on this Commission's order in L&T Finance Limited and Anr. Vs. Rampada, 2016(2) CLT page 343(NC) it was held by the District Forum that when the bank statement itself showed that an amount of Rs.1,45,545.00 was due as on 18/5/2005, the outstanding of Rs.5,82,400.00 shown as due in June, 2005 was inexplicable. The order of the District Forum reads as under:-

(3.) The appeal filed before the State Commission by the present petitioner was also dismissed on the grounds that no evidence had been filed by opposite party regarding any demand notice before repossessing the vehicle and the manner in which the vehicle was sold was not transparent. It was concluded that the petitioner indulge in an illegal procedure to repossess the vehicle and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000.00 of which Rs.25,000.00 was to be paid to the Respondent and Rs.25,000.00 to be deposited in the Legal-Aid account of the State Commission. This revision impugns the order of the State Commission.