M/S. MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED HAVING ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT: F Vs. RAVI RANJAN KUMAR SHRI RAVI UDAY KUMAR R/O TELWADI, TESIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 24.01.2014, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 402/2009, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 22.07.2009, passed by the District Forum Korba, allowing the consumer complaint No. 30/2007, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner Magma Fincorp Ltd., entered into a hire-purchase agreement dated 28.02005 with the complainant/respondent who wanted to avail the facility of finance for the purchase of Ashok Leyland commercial vehicle, bearing registration No. CG12C 1256. The petitioner granted a loan of Rs. 9,74,000.00 to him, as against the total cost of the vehicle quoted as Rs.10,26,313.00. It is stated that a sum of 3 lakh was paid by the complainant himself, covering the balance cost of the vehicle as well as the charges for registration, insurance etc. It is further stated that the said loan was payable in 45 instalments of Rs. 25,740.00 each between the period 1.03.2005 to 01.12008. As per the case of the petitioner, the complainant/respondent failed to repay the instalments as per the time schedule laid down. The petitioner sent a legal notice on 01.07.2006 to the complainant, asking him to adhere to the payment schedule and to pay the equated monthly instalments. However, the vehicle in question was repossessed by the petitioner on 11.07.2006. It is stated in the revision petition that at that time, a sum of Rs. 9,08,60.00 was due and payable by the complainant. The petitioner duly informed the concerned police station before and after the repossession of the vehicle. They also prepared the inventory of items in the vehicle on the spot, which was countersigned by the person, who was in possession of the vehicle at that time. The company, thereafter, issued a pre-sale legal notice to the complainant dated 13.07.2006, saying that the total outstanding dues against the complainant were Rs. 8,01,400.00. He was asked to clear the said dues within 7 days failing which, the vehicle would be sold. As stated by the petitioner, the vehicle was sold on 110.2006 for Rs. 6,25,000.00 and the complainant was also informed to that effect. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted arbitration proceedings against the complainant, who did not appear despite notice having been sent to him. An award was passed in arbitration proceedings on 04.01.2008 for a sum of Rs. 1,11,796/- after adjusting the sale proceeds of the vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that he had been making payments of instalments to the petitioner from time to time. The action of the petitioner in repossessing the vehicle forcibly was totally uncalled for. Even after the vehicle was repossessed, the petitioner informed him that the outstanding dues were Rs. 20,000.00. The complainant made the payment of the said Rs. 20,000.00 on 26.08.2006, but despite that, the petitioner refused to return the vehicle. The complainant stated that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.6.5 lakh till date, including the initial amount of Rs. 3 lakh spent at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,50,000.00 to him, along with Rs. 2,50,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000.00 as cost of litigation.