J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral):
1. They are multi-nationals and therefore have background of having competent professionals and personnel. They have business in highly civilized and developed countries. They are engaged in the business of finance and lending. Their wealth is immense and they have lost track of their wealth. It is because of this that they dont pay any heed to the orders passed by the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities of this country dealing with the consumer disputes arising from their deficiency in service. They do not listen to the Apex Court of this country namely the Supreme Court of India. They do not believe in rule of law. They consider themselves above law. They dont believe in legal method of recovery of dues. For recovering few thousands of rupees towards loan amount by way of instalments from the borrower they engage musclemen and goondas as recovery agents who waylay people while they are driving the financed vehicle on the road along with their families. They drag them, beat them mercilessly, cause injuries like robbers and hardened criminals and snatch the key and take away the vehicle little realizing the urgency or the emergency of the person. They leave them stranded on the road. Some may be going to the hospital for some emergency. Some other may be going to attend some family function, or going to office or for business purpose. They even trespass into the residential and office complexes to forcibly seize the vehicle. They insult everyone, humiliate the inmates and create scene. They have driven people to commit suicide for few thousands.
2. It was perhaps for such kinds of situation and people that a phrase was used in âGulliver Travels that âhouyhnhnm of yesterday have become Yahoos of todayâ. Later celebrated literateur Nirad C. Choudhary used this phrase in Autobiography of an Unknown Indian. We have used this phrase in one of our orders in Complaint Case No. C-83 of 2005 titled Vibhu Bhakru v. Standard Chartered Bank but unfortunately due to the reason that it is incomprehensible phrase the High Court of Delhi has expunged it. This has impelled us to explain as to the meaning of this phrase.
3. Houyhnhnm is one of the nobel rational horse races. Yahoo is a name given by Swift in Gulliver Travels to a class of animals with the forms of men with the understanding and passion of brutes. In short Yahoo means a brutal or boorish lout or rude and houyhnhnm means a noble and civilized person.
4. In this case, OP Bank availed the services of musclemen and goondas for recovery of few instalments by seizing the vehicle forcibly and in the process they mercilessly beat the man with iron rods, dragged him with the car and threw him on the road with multiple grievous injuries and profuse bleeding with a very big cut (6 x 1 centimetres) at the back of the skull that required to be stitched besides injuries on the backside, arms, hands and other parts of the body including a severe cut in the foot and his big toe was badly smashed. Ultimately, he received 12 stitches at the back of his skull and he required serious treatment of his other injuries as well. He remained admitted in the hospital for two weeks and incurred huge expenses.
5. What else shall we call them if not âyahoos, that is boorish and brutal lout.
6. Time and again we have warned these people and restrained them from employing musclemen and goondas to take possession of the vehicle for effecting recovery of few instalments or balance of loan amount. We have also directed the Police to register cases against culprits who indulge in such act. Inspite of Supreme Court having taken a stern exception and warned them not to take law into their hands, everything has fallen on deaf ears.
7. This Commission, National Commission and Honble Supreme Court has in case after case held that hire-purchase agreement or loan agreement is a civil contract and dispute arising from it has to be settled by way of civil remedy and not through musclemen. Merely because finance company or bank as per terms of the contract or for that purpose by virtue of any other provision of law say, SEBI Act, Hire-Purchase Act or as a hypothecatee is entitled to terminate the agreement and re-possess the vehicle in case of non-payment of instalments does not mean that such a clause empowers the financer to take the law into his own hands by sending musclemen to the consumer and taking forcible possession of the vehicle like goons. If such a methodology is permitted what prevents the landlord to hire few goondas and throw out the tenant and his belongings after expiry of lease or non-payment of rent. Such a remedy cannot be resorted to without intervention of the Court.
8. We cannot permit the finance companies and Banks to execute the terms of agreement in unlawful manner. These are disputes of civil nature and can be settled through process of law. They should seek appropriate order from the Civil Court for taking the possession of the vehicle and also for recovery of unpaid instalments and not employing Collection Agency or recovery agents for seizing the vehicle or for that purpose any goods purchased by raising loan forcibly and through musclemen. No civilized society can brook such a method of enforcing a legal right. Legal right has to be enforced through legal process or methodology. No person can be allowed to arrogate to itself the powers of Court or executing agency. If such a method of enforcing ones rights accruing from breach of terms of a civil contract or flowing from the provisions of relevant statute or law is allowed, rule of law will be the first casuality. Rule of law has to be preserved at any cost.
9. Now we advert to the complaint. Complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 3,40,749 (Rupees three lakhs forty thousand seven hundred forty and nine only) for purchasing a Maruti Swift car. He had booked the Maruti Swift car from his own funds i.e. an amount of Rs. 50,000 paid in cash vide receipt No. 14758 on 26.5.2005 to M/s. Sikand and Co. Amount of Rs. 3,40,749 was paid on 09.7.2005 to M/s. Sikand and Co. vide receipt No. 15758. He also made the payment of Rs. 7,661 on 11.7.2005. Thereafter he took delivery of a silver colour Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. DL 2CP 4390. He had been paying the monthly instalments regularly as the OP-Bank had already taken post-dated cheques from him for the repayment of loan amount. Moreover, some payments were being collected by the Bank through ECS and cash also. Three cheques of different months had bounced and thereafter the complainant started making the payments through ECS and later on he started paying the EMIs in cash to the agents of the OP No. 1. However, the OPs never bothered to return the post dated cheques which had bounced. He requested the agents/employees of OP No. 1 to try and appreciate that he was having some problem with his bank account and for the reason he was interested in paying cash instalments and taking back the cheque before its presentation. Due to some instability in the business he was not able to pay three or four instalments to the OPs. He had never received any notice, letter or intimation from any of the agents or authorized representatives or employees of the OP No. 1 with regard to any irregularity in the loan account of the complainant with regard to the Maruti Swift car till 15.1.2007 on which date he received a letter dated 12.1.2007.
10. That on 8.1.2007 at about 5.15 p.m. the complainant had gone to DDCA Club along with one Vinod who was the son of his friend and was driving his car on that day. On reaching the Club he asked Vinod to come with him inside the Club but Vinod told him that he would rather sit in the car and listen to the FM radio instead of going inside with the complainant. Complainant got out of the car and went inside the Firoz Shah Kotla Club. Just after 10-15 minutes, he saw a missed call on his mobile phone from the mobile phone of Vinod. He immediately dialled back the mobile phone of Vinod but he was not picking up the phone. Immediately he went out to speak to Vinod to enquire the reason of his giving missed call. As soon as he reached the parking area, he saw Vinod lying on the road approximately 60 to 100 metres away from the car from where the car was parked and the car bearing registration No. DL 2CP 4390 was not there. He saw Vinod bleeding heavily from head and toe. He immediately called other people from the Club who were coming towards him and within a few minutes some police officers in the uniform had also reached the site and Vinod was immediately rushed to LNJP Hospital in the Emergency by the complainant and few people from Firoz Shah Kotla Club.
11. That at the hospital Vinod told the police officers that he was sitting in the car with the window rolled up and was listening to FM music. He had kept his jacket, which was reversible jacket, on the back seat of the car. The said jacket contained Rs. 200 in cash in his purse which also contained his driving licence and another bag belonging to the complainant was lying on the back seat. Vinod told the police officer that someone came and knocked at the window of the driving seat on which he was sitting. He opened the window, the person asked him to reverse the car and turn it around at which he asked the reason for asking him to do so. At which the person said that he has come from ICICI Bank and while talking he opened the door and started pulling him out of the car by catching hold of him on the neck. He started resisting but he was pulled out. After he was pulled out, the said person who was holding him by his collar started slapping with his left hand and started hitting him on his face. While trying to move away, he removed the hand of the person from his collar, Vinod was trying to protect his face. During the pushing and pulling, the said person snatched his gold chain and started beating him mercilessly. Just then he could feel two or three other people behind him and he all of a sudden saw that one of the persons started shouting and next thing he remembers is that he was hit on the back of his skull with an iron rod and he fell down. As he fell down and these three-four persons started hitting him with the rods and legs. Thereafter these persons sat in the car of the complainant and tried to flee. He pulled himself up and ran towards the door of the car to open it up. He caught hold of the door but these persons without caring for anything reversed the car while he (Vinod) was trying to stop the car. As a result, he even got dragged for a few meters with the car moving in a high speed and subsequently fell away from the car, on the road. The complainant and few other persons had clearly heard Vinod narrate the above stated statement to the police.
12. That the Police Station IP Estate registered the FIR bearing No. 8 of 2007 on 8.1.2007 and the complainant as well as the relatives of the injured Shri Vinod were shocked to note the contents of the FIR. Subsequently the investigating officer of P.S. IP Estate had recovered the Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. DL 2CP 4390 from the godown of the ICICI Bank. On 22.1.2007, shockingly as an act of admission of guilt, ICICI Bank had moved an application for release of the said car on superdari and an application was also moved by the complainant herein for release of the car on superdari to him because he was the rightful owner of the said vehicle. The Metropolitan Magistrate vide its order dated 27.1.2007 was pleased to release the said car to the complainant on a superdarinama of Rs. 2,50,000. The Metropolitan Magistrate vide the same order had dismissed the application of the ICICI Bank on the grounds that the said vehicle was repossessed by ICICI Bank by using force and inflicting injury on the person of the complainant and that ICICI Bank had not followed the due process of law to repossess the vehicle as per the guidelines laid down by the High Court of Delhi.
13. That the complainant had got Mr. Vinod admitted to New Life Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, B-15, Gurudwara Road, Delhi-110092 for his better treatment and care. Vinod had remained hospitalized for around two weeks and the entire expenses of hospitalization were borne by the complainant. The photographs of the injured Vinod while recovering at the hospital where he was subsequently treated after he was taken out of the Government Hospital because of lack of medical attention and proper care are annexed.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts, the complainant has sought the following compensation:
(a) Sum of Rs. 21,00,000 for mental agony, emotional sufferings, insult and humiliation and physical harassment caused to the complainant as a result of the forcible repossession of the said vehicle by the opposite parties through their officials, agency and musclemen under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(b) Â Sum of Rs. 20,00,000 to Shri Vinod, S/o Shri Raj Pal, R/o House No. 244/107, School Block, Mandawli, Delhi as compensation for the injuries, sufferings both mental and physical caused to him by the employees/agents of the Opposite Party No. 1 on the behest and while working under the instructions, supervisions and guidelines issued for and on behalf of the OP No. 1 by the OP Nos. 2 to 9 for the forcible repossession of the said vehicle by committing gross, illegal, unauthorized, mala fide and criminal act under the guise of having got the power to repossess the vehicle under the Loan Agreement signed by the complainant.
(c) Â Sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation/exemplary damages to the complainant against the OPs for the failure on their part to comply with the orders/directions passed by this Honble Commission in Appeal No. A-954/2006 titled as M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. v. Bharat Singh on 8.12.2006.
(d) Â An additional amount of Rs. 50,000 which has been actually spent by the complainant on the treatment and hospitalization of Shri Vinod who was injured by musclemen of the OP while repossessing the vehicle forcible and inflicting injuries on the person of Shri Vinod.
(e) Sum of Rs. 50,000 as damages to the complainant against the OPs as per the orders/directions passed by this Honble Commission in Appeal No. A-954/2006 titled M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. v. Bharat Singh on 8.12.2006.
15. On behalf of ICICI Bank, the OP No. 1 and its Branches and its officers of OPs (except Collection Branch) one Shri Sanjeev Bakshi, Legal Manager has filed the affidavit and has shifted the load of blame to the collection agency namely Elegance Collxns engaged by it for recovering dues from the borrowers and has not disputed other allegations and facts including the grave injuries suffered by the complainant. In nutshell their version is that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the excess and/or illegality, if any, as alleged are committed by the officials of collection agency i.e. Elegance Collxns, 212 Garg Plaza, Plot No. 2, Bhera Enclave, Opposite National Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087 and the said agency and any employee thereof would alone be liable for any wrong committed. Any act in defiance to the terms of the agency agreement (collection agreement) would not hold the OPs liable in any manner.
16. That the agency aforesaid was appointed vide Collection Agreement dated December 2004 and there are specific covenants whereby the agency, its officials, employees, personnel are bound to conduct themselves within the parameters of law and are obliged to not to commit, abet or permit the commission of any illegal act while working in the course of the Agreement and in the event of any illegal act being committed or abetted, the collection agent shall alone be liable for all consequences thereof.
17. That as per Clause 7.1 of the above said agreement, the collection agent is bound to indemnify the Bank of any loss or damage caused, on account of any act or omission, default or mistake or error on its part. The averments, as set out in the complaint clearly make out allegations which are directed against the collection agency and its officials who have apparently exceeded their authority, in defiance to the terms of the collection agreement and they alone are responsible for their acts of omission and commission.
18. That OPs immediately terminated and revoked the agency agreement vide its revocation letter dated 20th March, 2007 and the agency i.e. Elegance Collxns is no more representing or acting on behalf of the OPs.
19. That the collection agency and its employees who have allegedly committed excess and taken law in their own hands are responsible to be impleaded as OPs and they are necessary and proper parties for proper adjudication and determination of all controversies in the matter.
20. When we issued notices to Chairman, Managing Director and other officers (OP No. 2 to 7) to appear in person to apprise us as to why they resorted to this methodology to recover the dues, they filed an application for exemption for appearance which we allowed but they all shifted the whole load of blame to their Collection Manager (OP No. 8) and Collection Agency viz., M/s. elegance Collxns. What an irony. Name of Collection agency is âElegance but deed is boorish.
21. On merits the OP No.1 has averred that the complainant had himself been negligent in not performing his part of the Agreement as he has been continually defaulting in payment of instalments towards loan which he had availed of in the sum of Rs. 3,48,000 for purchase of vehicle namely Swift/LXI. He was under legal obligation to regularly pay the agreed 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 7,251 in terms of loan agreement dated 1.7.2005. Several recall notices were issued to the complainant prior to referring the matter to the collection agency for repossession and the complainant has been highly negligent and has been defaulting in repayment despite notices of demand and requests and reminders made in that regard and the cheques/ECS were returned for the reasons âinsufficient fundâ.
22. That no official much less any of the OPs have in no way committed any act which would fall within the parameters of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or give rise to any action and there being neither any deficiency nor any negligence and the allegations being otherwise vague, unspecific and motivated, the complaint deserves dismissal.
23. That the police have indeed registered an FIR, which is yet under investigation, and the illegality or wrong, if any, committed is by the officials of collection agency, i.e. M/s. Elegance Collxns and they alone would be responsible for the consequence in accordance with law. OPs have fully and completely complied with all the instructions and guidelines laid down by various Courts including the Honble High Court of Delhi and all laws and procedures are duly complied with.
24. That the OP Nos. 2 to 7 being the Chairman, Managing Director and CEO, Joint Managing Director, Dy. Managing Directors and Executive Director are not responsible for appointment of the agency. The appointment of the agency is the responsibility of the Collection Manager and for appointment of the agency, an agreement is entered and a code of conduct is signed by the agency, wherein they are bound to act strictly in accordance with the said guidelines which are framed in accordance with the circulars and guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time.
25. In support of his allegations the complainant has produced and proved the following documents:
(i)Â Â Annexure A is copies of loan documents (pages 18 to 21)
(ii)Â Annexure B is copies of the loan receipts dated 25.10.2006 and 28.12.2006 and letter dated 12.1.2007.
(iii)Â Annexure C is true copy of the FIR dated 8.1.2007.
(iv)Â Annexure D is true copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the Police Commissioner against shielding of criminals and bank employees by the police.
(v)Â Â Annexure E is true copy of the certified copies of the application filed by the ICICI Bank for releasing the vehicle on superdari.
(vi) Â Annexure F is true copy of the certified copies of the application filed by the complainant for releasing the vehicle on superdari.
(vii) Annexure G is true copies of the certified copies of the order dated 21.1.2007 passed by the learned concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
(viii) Annexure H is the true copy of the certified copy of the report field by the Investigating Officer to the application filed by ICICI Bank for release of vehicle on superdari.
(ix) Â Annexure I is the true copy of the report filed by the Investigating Officer to the application filed by the complainant for release of vehicle on superdari.
(x)Â Annexure J is true copy of the order dated 3.3.2007 passed by the Court of Shri Pulatasya Pramachala, M.M., Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.C. No. 2425/1.
(xi) Â Annexure K is true copy of the medical records, bills, prescriptions, receipts of payment of medicines.
(xii) Annexure L is photographs of the injured Vinod while recovering at the hospital where he was subsequently treated after he was taken out of the Government Hospital.
26. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and accorded careful consideration to the material on record. The main plank of the defence of the OP No. 1-Bank is that it is the collection agency engaged by its Collection Manager who has committed the breach of terms of the agreement and therefore it is not liable for their act of omission and commission. Apart from this the Bank has taken the plea that in spite of having been served several notices the complainant has failed to make some of the installments.
27. So far as the Collection Agreement executed between the OP-Bank and M/s. Elegance Collxns is concerned, it is altogether an independent agreement and complainant i.e. consumer has no concern with it. This agreement is inter se arrangement of the Bank for employing private agency for recovery of the dues. Thus there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the collection agency. Such a privity is between the OP-Bank and collection agency. Any act done by the collection agency which is not permissible by law the OP-Bank is directly liable. OP cannot take law in their hands for collection or recovery of dues by employing musclemen or goondas by causing injuries to the consumer.
28. In our view if any service provider wants to engage private agency for recovery of dues, it has to authorize it to only recover it through legal method, say by suit for recovery and not through any other methods, say by employing threats, harassment, force and causing injuries from whom some amount is due or indulging in other act which verges on criminal offence.
29. The seizure of the vehicle for the purpose of recovering dues by harassment, force, musclemen or goondas was held by this Commission illegal per se in the case Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. Vijayalaxmi, II (2005) CPJ 327, which was decided by this Commission by way of Appeal No. 65/2004 dated 10.3.2005 and in Magma Leasing Ltd. v. Bharat Singh, I (2007) CPJ 200, in appeal No. 954/2006 decided on 8.12.2006. Our view taken in Citicorp. Finance Ltd. case was upheld by the Supreme Court and the National Commission. Observations of National Commission in Revision Petition No. 737/2005 titled Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi, III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC), are relevant, pithy and are as under:
âWhen a vehicle is purchased by a person (consumer) by borrowing money from the money lender/financier/banker, the consumer is the owner of the vehicle and not the money/lender/financier/banker, unless the ownership is transferred.
In a democratic country having well established independent Judiciary and having various laws it is impermissible for the money lender/financier/banker to take possession of the vehicle for which loan is advanced, by use of force.
Legal or judicial process may be slow but it is no excuse for employing musclemen to repossess the vehicle for which loan is given. Such type of âinstant justice cannot be permitted in a civilized society where there is effective rule of law. Otherwise, it would result in anarchy, that too, when the borrower retorts and uses the force.
A hire-purchase agreement is a normal one under which owner hires goods to another party called the hirer and further agrees that the hirer shall have an option to purchase the chattel when he has paid a certain sum, or when the hire-rental payments have reached the hire-purchase price stipulated in the agreement.
As against this, when a person desires to purchase vehicle/goods and not having sufficient money on hand, borrows the amount needed from a money lender/financier/banker and pays it over to the vender of the vehicle, the transaction between the consumer and the money lender will unquestionably be a loan transaction. In such a case the vehicle purchased by the consumer is registered in the name of the consumer and remains at all material times so registered in his name. The consumer remains qua the world at large the owner and remains in possession of the vehicle. By an agreement the vehicle can be given as security for the loan advanced. In such a case, the right to seize the vehicle is merely a licence to ensure compliance with the terms of the so-called hire purchase agreement (Re. AIR 1966 SC 1178).
It is to be stated that many financiers/banks are in race for giving loan for purchase of vehicles or various articles. After giving loan and taking interest in advance, the polite behaviour changes because of the documents which are signed on the dotted lines by the borrower. On occasions, borrower suffers harassment, torture, or abuses at the hands of the musclemen of the money lender. Such a behaviour is required to be prohibited and the process of repossession is required to be streamlined so as to fit in cultural civilized society. Let the rule of law prevail and not that of jungle where might is right.
In such cases even the police does not register the FIR or help the aggrieved consumer. In the present case, nothing has been done by the Police for years despite the complaint. In any case, taking of pound of flesh is required to be discouraged.
In case when the vehicle was repossessed by use of force, and thereafter, sold without informing the complainant, in our view, it would be unjust to direct the consumer to pay the balance amount, as alleged by the financier to be outstanding. If such a relief is given to the money lender/financier, it would be unjust enrichment to the money lender and against equity. The question may arise for consideration only if the complainant willingly surrenders the vehicle for sale and for recovery of the outstanding amount. Then, in such cases, consumer dispute would not arise.
Where the vehicle is forcefully seized and sold by the money lender/financier/banker it would be just and proper to award reasonable compensation to the complainant. âReasonable compensation would depend upon facts of each case.â
30. Aforesaid circumstances of any case of hire purchase or loan agreement amount to deficiency in service, as defined by Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
31. In nutshell our conclusion are as underâ
(i)Â Hire Purchase Agreement or loan agreement or even hypothecation contract are contracts of civil nature and any right to any of the parties to the contract arising from breach of the term of the contract has to be enforced through legal process i.e. with the intervention of the Court and not through use of force coercion. Such a methodology of enforcing ones right hits at the foundation of rule of law and civilized society. No society governed by rule of law can allow an individual to take law in his hands.
(ii) Use of force through musclemen and goons for seizing the goods or recovering the dues by publically humiliating, including physically beating and causing injuries in the public or at residence or at official or public place is serious violation of human rights as every human being has a right to be treated in the dignity and respect. That is why every civilized society is governed by rule of law.
(iii) Merely a person has, in terms of contract or by virtue of any law say, in this case, SEBI Act, or Hire Purchase Act or a Hypothecatee right to seize or repossess the goods like vehicles does not mean that he can arrogate the powers of the Court and be a Judge and pass the decree and execute the same. He has to enforce his right through civil, legal process and not through any other method and such an act amounts to deficiency in service.
(iv) Whenever the financier chooses to take possession of the vehicle and sell it, it has to refund the contribution and payment made by the person concerned after adjusting the unpaid instalment in the sale proceeds that too till the date of seizure of the vehicle and not beyond that as no person can be deprived of the amount contributed towards the purchase price of the vehicle and financier or Bank cannot be allowed encashment of post dated cheques as the vehicle or for that purpose any goods against which loan was advanced had been seized and the consumer in spite of being owner of the vehicle is no more in possession of the goods for which he had raised the loan nor is he in a position to enjoy the fruits. With seizure and sale of the vehicle or goods the contract stands terminated and the loan amount stands recovered.
(v) Â In such a situation financier recovers the dues accruing from the unpaid instalments and the principal by seizing and selling the vehicle. Hence all the post-dated cheques have to be returned. In case it intends to return the vehicle, it can do so on payment of unpaid instalments due by that date.
(vi) Â Further the sale price of such a vehicle cannot be fixed by the financier at its whims or caprice. Experience shows that one or two year old vehicles are sold off at throwaway or at half or little more value to the known people or friends or by way of an auction. That is why we have taken the view that cost i.e. sale price of the vehicle shall be assessed and adjusted by way of depreciated value @ 5% per year in case of passenger vehicle and @ 10% in case of commercial vehicle.
(vii) Further whenever financier or Bank chooses to repossess the vehicle by employing musclemen or goons as recovery agents and without being equipped with the order from the Civil Court such financier has to compensate the consumer on account of mental agony, harassment, humi-liation, emotional suffering and injury suffered by the consumer and insult he and his family members suffer.
32. Foregoing reasons persuade us to hold the OP guilty for grossest kind of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for breach of terms of contract of hire-purchase/loan agreement by seizing the vehicle illegally and selling it at throw away price and recovering the dues in respect of goods i.e. vehicle which had ceased to be in his possession and rendered the contract extinct and encashment of subsequent post-dated cheques being impermissible as with the possession and sale of vehicle the entire liability not only stood discharged but also entitled the consumer to claim the margin money contributed by him towards the price of the vehicle or goods.
33. Complaint is allowed in terms of following orders:
(i)Â Â OP shall pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lacs including the margin money and money paid by the complainant towards loan amount, for the sufferings and gravious injuries caused by their agents in brutal and boorish manner and throwing him on the road in profuse bleeding condition that made him to be admitted in the hospital for more than two weeks and stitching of serious wounds on the skull/its back, towards medical expenses as well as public humiliation, mental agony, trauma, emotional sufferings, physical discomfort and great injustice done to him.
(ii)Â OP shall further return all the post-dated cheques from the date of seizure and if any of them has been encashed shall refund the amount thereof.
(iii) Â We impose punitive damages of Rs. 50 lacs as a deterrent for OPs audacity and impunity with which they have been violating orders of this Commission, National Commission and even Honble Supreme Court by indulging in such an abominable and uncivilized conduct by taking the law in their hands and enforcing their right, if any, through musclemen and goons and in the process causing multiple and serious injuries in the broad day light and humiliating and insulting the man before the public. This amount shall be deposited in favour of State Consumer Welfare Fund (Legal Aid).
34. We also give the following directions to all the Banks and financiers as well as the Police:
(i)Â Â No Bank or Finance Company or Financier and OPs shall in future take the possession of the vehicle or for that purpose any goods forcibly by employing musclemen and goons shall enforce this right through process of law and omission or failure of these directions shall invite penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(ii)Â Police Commissioner is directed to issue instructions to all the S.H.Os. that they shall register cases against the deficient officials of the Bank and Collection Manager of the Company or Bank as well as the CEO of Collection Agency and Recovery agents employed by it.
35. Aforesaid order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
36. Complaint is allowed of in aforesaid terms.
37. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
38. Copy of the order be sent to National dailies for information of one and all.
39. Copy of the order be sent to the Presidents of all the District Fora.
Complaint allowed.