STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. SHAKIR IQBAL MOTONWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 5.3.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in Case No.723 of 2002 directing the opponent to return the car and directing the complainant to pay whatever amount that has remained outstanding with regard to the car loan/car finance in question with a rider that the complainant would not be liable to pay interest on the instalments which were due during the period when the car remained in possession of the opponent.

(2.) The complainant approached the learned Forum with allegations of facts that he had taken car finance in the sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the opponent with repayment schedule of payment of Rs.6,675/- every month for a period of six months in the form of post-dated cheques taken by the opponent from the complainant. The complainant alleged that one or two instalments could not be paid in time as the cheques were not honoured on presentation. But the complainant gave assurance to the opponent (oral assurance) to pay up the amount within short time and yet the persons of opponent namely Mr. Ketan S. Desai and Yahayabhai had seized the vehicle in question from the Manager of the complainant. Even at that point of time, the complainant informed (orally) the opponent that he was prepared to pay up the outstanding amount but the opponent did not listen to the complainant and had taken possession of the car in question. The complainant, on these allegations of facts, alleged that the possession of the car was taken without any lawful action and, therefore, it was an illegal action on the part of the opponent to take possession of the car from the complainant. The complainant, therefore, prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- as also compensation on the head of mental agony and hardship in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, in all Rs.65,000/- over and above return of the car. He has also prayed for interest @ 18% p. a. Opponent did not appear before the learned Forum though duly served. After considering the complaint and the averments made in the complaint, as also the receipts dated 28.2.2002 and 25.10.2001, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that action of the opponent in taking the possession of the car was not legal particularly when the complainant assured to pay the outstanding amount as per letter dated 9.5.2002 addressed by the complainant to the opponent. The learned Forum, therefore, passed the impugned order.

(3.) We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. At the outset we would like to observe that the opponent defaulted in not appearing before the learned Forum without any reason and, therefore, the matter went ex parte. In order that the matter could be heard on merits even in this appeal, it would be just and proper to impose appropriate cost upon the opponent-appellant before us in order to deter such parties in not appearing before the Fora and defending their just cause.