Uma S. Bora, Member:
1. ICICI Bank Ltd through its power of attorney holder Mr.Vishal Umeshchandra Shrivastava, Aurangabad challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum,Ahmednagar on 8.3.2007 while deciding consumer complaint No.515/2006.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. Complainant Vasant Nawale resident of Bhende Tq.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar had purchased tractor of John Deer of L and T company on 30.5.2005. The said tractor was purchased from Matruchhaya Sales and Service bearing No.MH-17D-1137. For purchasing said tractor complainant had availed loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from the appellant. Said loan was to be repaid by six monthly instalment of Rs.28750/-. It is alleged by the complainant that first instalment was due in January 2006 but due to some financial constrain he could not deposit said instalment. Accordingly, he informed the appellant about his inability to deposit first instalment. Even then on 18.5.2006 some musclemen accompanied with officer of appellant forcefully seized the vehicle. Therefore complainant approached to Forum. Complainant prayed for return of said tractor as well as prayed for interim relief against appellant not to sell said tractor. On 31.10.2006 District Consumer Forum granted interim relief on the condition complainant to deposit Rs.15,000/- in the District Consumer Forum. But complainant failed to deposit said amount.
3. Appellant though served with notice by the Forum did not appear before the Forum.
4. Therefore after hearing complainant and perusing record District Consumer Forum directed appellant to pay Rs.96,000/- as compensation or to adjust said amount in the loan account of complainant. District Consumer Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.2000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- for cost.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original opponent came in appeal.
6. Adv.Umesh Shete for appellant and Adv.Shri.B.P.Varma appeared for respondent. It is submitted by Adv.Shete that it is an admitted fact that complainant had availed loan of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent. While availing loan complainant entered into hire-purchase agreement. As per terms and conditions of the said agreement, appellant is owner of said vehicle and after repayment of loan by complainant, complainant is to be become of owner of said vehicle. Both the parties to the agreement are under obligation to follow and obey terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As per said agreement complainant was under obligation to repay the loan in equal instalment of Rs.28,750/-. Instalments were to be paid half-yearly. But complainant defaulted first instalment. As complainant committed default in the month of January notice was issued by the appellant for repayment of instalment and thereafter in the month of May i.e. after five months the vehicle was repossessed. Therefore the contention of complainant that he was not aware about the seizer and he was not informed about the seizer cannot be accepted. District Consumer Forum without considering said facts granted compensation of exorbitant amount. Hence appeal be allowed by quashing and setting aside the said order. In support of his contention he relied on Suryapal Singh-Vs- Siddha Vinayak Motors and Anr. reported in II(2012) CPJ 8(SC). It is held by Apex Court that hire-purchase agreement-Repossession of vehicle- Non-payment of instalment-National Commisison granted compensation -SLP before Supreme Court-Financer is the real owner of vehicle and person who takes loan retains vehicle only as bailee/trustee-Petitioner is restrained to make recovery of awarded amount. Adv.Shete also relied on "Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. -Vs- Mr.Chaman Lal, in R.P.No.689/2012 decided on 14th September 2012.
7. Adv.V.B.Varma for respondent submitted that complainant isa farmer, his livelihood depends on the tractor purchased by availing loan. It is further submitted by respondent that complainant could not deposit only one instalment due in January 2006. Accordingly, he gave instalment to the appellant even then appellant repossessed his tractor forcefully. In the month of May, officer of appellant came with musclemen and forcefully seized the vehicle. It is further submitted by Adv.Varma that no notice before possession was ever issued by the appellant to the respondent. Therefore District Consumer Forum rightly considered the facts and evidence while allowing the appellant. Hence appeal be dismissed.
8. We thus heard both the counsel and perused the record. It is admitted fact that complainant had availed loan of Rs.5 lakhs from the appellant. It is also admitted fact that loan was to be repaid in the halfyearly instalment of Rs.28,750/-. It is also admitted fact that respondent/org.complainant could not deposit even first instalment immediately after purchase of tractor. It is also seen from the record that while seeking interim relief complainant was directed by the Forum to deposit Rs.15,000/- in the Forum as condition precedent to interim relief. But complainant did not deposit the said amount before the Forum. It seems that complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hand. It is seen from the record that first instalment was due in January-2006 and vehicle was seized in May-2006 i.e. after five months after due date or payment of instalment. In our view complainant ought to have tried to deposit said instalment even after due date. But till the seizer of the vehicle complainant did not deposit single pai for repayment of loan. Even while seeking interim relief complainant failed to deposit amount as per direction of Forum. In our view order passed by District Consumer Forum has no foundation while considering facts and evidence. Forum did not appreciate the evidence in proper prospective while allowing complaint. From the above mentioned reasons complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence,
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.