JALESHWAR SHAH WARD NO. 61, BRP CHOWK, MOHARI GARMENTS Vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 19.01.2011, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in appeal No. 654/2010, "Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. v. Jaleswar Shah ," vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 27.09.2010, passed by the District Forum Durg, allowing the complaint No. 72/2010, filed by the present petitioner, was set aside and the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The facts as stated in the consumer complaint are that the complainant Jaleshwar Shah purchased a tractor bearing No. CG07C 4398 which was financed for Rs. 4,70,000/- by the OP Financer and the said loan was repayable with interest in 34 monthly instalments of Rs. 13,309/- each. The complainant alleged that at the time of signing the agreement with the OP for obtaining the loan, a few printed forms with empty spaces, were got signed from the complainant with assurance by the OP that the same shall be returned on termination of the agreement. The complainant stated that he had been paying the instalments from time to time through cash or cheque. He, however, admitted that cheque No. 8134615 of Dena Bank, Sector 10 Branch, Bhilai for Rs. 13,309/- was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Subsequently, the vehicle was forcibly repossessed by the OPs on 04.05.2009 without sending any prior notice to him. The said vehicle was sold on 17.06.2009 for Rs. 2,25,000/- without any prior intimation and without calling quotations from the market. The said act of the respondent/OP constitutes unfair trade practise on their part, and it caused loss to the complaint. Despite the sale of the vehicle, the OP was sending recovery notice of Rs. 1,52,402/- which included arbitrary interest on the said amount. The complainant sought directions through the consumer complaint to the OP Financer to return his vehicle after receiving their outstanding amount and to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakh for loss to the complainant due to repossession of the vehicle and a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony etc.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the respondent/OP by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the amount of loan was Rs. 4,17,000/- and not Rs. 4,70,000/-. The said loan was payable in 48 instalments of Rs. 13,309/- each, for which the complainant had provided post-dated cheques to them. The loan agreement had been executed between the parties and the complainant had signed the same after reading and understanding the contents therein. The complainant paid the first five instalments regularly, but after that the cheque for payment of instalment for January 2008 was dishonoured. The cheques for February 2008 and March 2008 were encashed but subsequently, the cheques for the months from April 2008 to June 2009 were dishonoured, which was evident from the statement of accounts as well. The OP company had given regular information to the complainant about non-payment of instalments and only after that, the vehicle was repossessed on 04.05.2009 as per due process of law. The signatures of the complainant were also obtained on repossessed vehicle inventory list. The OP sent a registered letter to the complainant and his guarantor (wife) on 8.09.2009 about the total outstanding amount and for its payment, but the same was returned with the remarks, "incomplete address". Another letter was sent to the complainant and his guarantor on 17.06.2009 at the address mentioned in the agreement, but the same was also returned with the remarks, "incomplete address". After repossession of the vehicle, information regarding its market value was obtained by appointing an independent surveyor Jagat Ratnani, who assessed the market value at about Rs. 2,40,000/-, as per his valuation report dated 19.06.2009. Since the complainant never approached them for clearing the loan amount, they sold the vehicle for Rs. 2,25,000/-. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service, irregularity or unfair trade practise on their part.