Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member:
1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter referred as œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 517 dated 20.3.2007 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties/respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) on the allegations that he got financed a motor-cycle bearing registration No. PB-10-BP-2001, Engine No. 0056431, Chassis No. 58056362 from the OP and he was further agreed to re-pay the entire loan amount in 36 monthly instalments and Rs. 4878/- was paid as initial payment. The complainant had been paying the monthly instalment to the OP regularly but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not pay some monthly instalments and her cheques issued to the OP were dishonoured. It has further been alleged that on 29.4.2006, the complainants vehicle was repossessed by the OP and then the complainant received notice dated 9.10.2006 through its Legal Executive vide which Ops demanded Rs. 15,198/- plus annual finance charges @3% p.m. and also coming to know that vehicle has been sold by the Ops without notice to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency on their part. Hence, the complaint with the direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on account of deficiency in services, unfair trade practice as well as causing mental and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party, who submitted that Ops financed vehicle of the complainant bearing engine No. 0057431, chassis No. 58056362 and disbursed the loan of Rs. 58,716/-, which was to be repaid in monthly instalment of Rs. 1631/-, however, the complainant did not adhere to the financial discipline of the Ops and the vehicle so financed was repossessed and it was sold through agency E-Bay/Baazi.com for a sum of Rs. 29,500/- on 19.5.2006 and its information was sent by prior notice to the complainant on 11.5.2006. Still a sum of Rs. 15,198/- is outstanding against the complainant plus 3% AFC per month. In the preliminary objections, it has been stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and that the Honble Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. On merits, it has been again reiterated that loan of Rs. 58,716/- was sanctioned to the complainant, who paid the down payment of Rs. 4878/- and the loan amount was to be repaid in 36 EMIs but the complainant did not adhere to the financial discipline of the Ops, his vehicle was repossessed and was sold as stated above and still a sum of Rs. 15,198/- is outstanding against the complainant. Accordingly, it was submitted that there is no merit in the complaint so filed by the complainant and it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, receipts Ex. A-1 to A-9, copy of pass book Ex. A-10, repossession inventory list Ex. A-11, sale letter of repossessed asset Ex. A-12, application under RTI Ex. A-13, reply to the application Ex. A-14. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Paramjit Singh Bansal Ex. RW-1/A, Loan agreement papers Ex. D-1, pre-sale Notice Ex. D-2, pre-sale notice acknowledgment Ex. D-3, application under RTI Ex. D-4, reply to the application Ex. D-5, claim loss intimation dt. 9.10.06 Ex. D-6, letter of surrender Ex. D-7, repossession inventory list Ex. D-8.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order did not find any merit in the complaint and the same was dismissed.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the appellant that loan was taken from the OPs/respondent and his signatures on some blank papers were obtained in good faith but when he could not repay the amount, due to financial crunch, they repossessed his vehicle and sold it without intimation to him, therefore, there is deficiency in services on their part, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned District Forum.
10. There is no dispute with regard to the sanction of the loan to the complainant by the Ops amounting to Rs. 58,716/- and down payment of Rs. 4878/- was made by the complainant and the loan amount was to be disbursed in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 1631/- per instalment but the statement of account Ex. C-10 shows that after 10.4.2005, no payment was made by the complainant and his vehicle was repossessed and ultimately, it was sold through E-Bay/Baazi.com for a sum of Rs. 29,500/-. So far as notice is concerned, Ops have placed on the record their letter Ex. R-2 (D-2) i.e. Pre-Sale Notice dated 11.5.2006 and he was given 7 days time and after expiry of the 7 days time, it will be sold, therefore, it cannot be said that no pre-sale notice was given to the complainant before his vehicle was put for sale. So far as sale is also concerned, it was done through an independent agency and there is no evidence on behalf of the complainant that the value of the vehicle so sold was more than that. In case the complainant was defaulter and was not coming forward to pay the outstanding amount, no alternative was left with the Ops but to get the possession of the vehicle and Pre-Sale Notice was issued to the complainant to regularize his account otherwise his vehicle will be sold but the complain ant failed to regularize his account and accordingly, his vehicle was sold and the amount so recovered was credited to his loan account and still some amount is outstanding against the complainant. Therefore, the vehicle of the complainant has been sold on account of irregularities committed by the complainant to regularize his account and in these circumstances, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, therefore, the learned District Forum was justified to dismiss the complaint so filed by the complainant and we affirm the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum.
11. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.2.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.