CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD. Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Revision Petition, by a Finance Company, is to an order dated 27.08.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 759 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while overturning the order, dated 09.04.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 557/2007, has directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant, the Respondent herein, a lump sum amount of 2,00,000/ - as compensation for taking possession of the Hypothecated vehicle by use of force and selling the same without notice to him.

(2.) BRIEF facts, necessary for disposal of the Revision Petition are: that sometime in year 2005, the Complainant purchased a Commercial Vehicle, make Tata 207 DI, for a total consideration of 3,74,966/ -. He raised a loan of 2.90 lacs from the Finance Company, for which he executed a Loan -Cum -Hypothecation Agreement. Rest of the amount was spent by him from his own pocket. It appears that there was delay in payment of some instalments, but in all he paid in instalments a total sum of 2.45 lacs. As per notice of demand, issued to him on 31.05.2006, a sum of 45,029/ - was due from him as on 29.05.2006. Interestingly, as per the notice of demand, issued to him on 03.01.2006, the total amount due from him as on 25.01.2006 was shown as 2,54,856/ -. It appears from the documents on record, that the Complainant had made some payments in cash.

(3.) ALL efforts to get the vehicle released having failed, and left with no other option, the Complainant filed Complaint before the District Forum. On contest, accepting the stand of the Finance Company that since the Complainant had been persistently defaulting in payment of the instalments, as per the terms of the Loan Agreement, it had the power to recover the outstanding loan by seizing and selling the vehicle, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.