The Manager, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Others Vs. N. Shankar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1148632
CourtTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided OnJan-29-2014
Case NumberF.A.No. 198 of 2011
JudgeR. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AppellantThe Manager, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Others
RespondentN. Shankar
Excerpt:
j. jayaram, judicial member this appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the district consumer disputes redressal forum, nagapattinam in c.c.43/2008, dated 21-04-2010, allowing the complaint.2. the case of the complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle by availing loan from the opposite parties and there was default in the payment of last three emis. the opposite parties, without intimating him and without his knowledge, stealthily took away the motorcycle from the complainants sisters house and without intimating him sold the vehicle in auction. when he approached the opposite parties, they did not respond properly and there was no response to his letter to the opposite parties. so, he sent an advocates notice to which the opposite parties replied that the vehicle was sold in auction and the balance amount after satisfying the dues for the loan, a sum of rs.3,988/- which is due to be paid to the complainant remains with them. all these, amount to deficiency in service on their part, and hence the complaint. 3. according to the opposite parties, the complainant expressed his difficulty in repaying the last six emis and he voluntarily surrendered the motorcycle to the opposite parties and intimation was sent to the complainant regarding repossession and auction sale of the vehicle. there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. the district forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and directing the opposite parties to collect the pending dues of emis from the complainant and to hand over the documents relating to the vehicle to the complainant and further directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of rs.1,000/-. aggrieved by this impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal. 5. the contention of the complainant / respondent is that he had to pay only the last three emis to the appellants / opposite parties and he has already paid rs.40,000/- in total and there was some delay in making payment of the last three emis to the opposite parties and he had given the vehicle to his sisters husband for his use. the opposite parties, without giving any intimation and without giving notice of repossession of the vehicle, they stealthily took away the vehicle from his sisters house and sold it in auction. 6. it is pertinent to note that the opposite parties have not issued any intimation or any notice to the complainant before repossession of the vehicle and the opposite parties have stealthily taken away the vehicle from the complainants sisters house without informing them about the repossession. the opposite parties have not produced the essential documents such as statement of accounts, notice for repossession, notice for sale and they have not disclosed the amount already paid by the complainant, and the balance amount due, and the sale amount etc. there is no evidence on record to establish that the opposite parties sent any notice or intimation to the complainant before repossessing the vehicle and likewise before the auction sale of the motorcycle, and so the contention of the opposite parties that they sent notices in advance to the complainant is unacceptable and untenable. 7. another submission of the opposite parties is that the complainant himself voluntarily handed over the vehicle to the opposite parties, is not substantiated and is not worthy of acceptance. 8. furthermore, the opposite parties have silently sold the vehicle in auction without giving any intimation or notice to the complainant. thus the opposite parties have committed a criminal offence and they have not followed the due procedure known to law. 9. it is relevant to note that according to the complainant, he has to repay only the last three emis and he has already paid rs.40,000/- to the opposite parties. the opposite parties have not produced any document to show the amount remitted by the complainant so far and the balance amount due, the sale amount etc. even in their version, proof affidavit and the reply notice, these particulars are not furnished. therefore, we have to infer that the complainants averments are true and the particulars mentioned in the complaint reflect the correct position which has to be accepted. 10. the opposite parties would further contend that the motorcycle was sold in auction and after set-off a sum of rs.3,988/- remains with them due to be returned to the complainant. considering all these, we hold that repossession of the vehicle without notice and selling the vehicle in auction without notice and not returning the balance amount to the complainant and not returning the documents amount to gross deficiency in service. 11. the district forum has allowed the complaint passing an order directing the opposite parties to return the documents relating to the vehicle on receiving any amount if due from the complainant and to pay a sum of rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship etc. and to pay costs of rs.1,000/-. 12. as stated supra, it is submitted by the opposite parties that they have to return a sum of rs.3,988/- to the complainant and therefore, the question of collecting the remaining dues from the complainant does not arise. 13. we come to know that the complainant has paid rs.40,000/- by way of emis and according to the complainant, he has to pay only three emi instalments each of rs.1,927/- totaling rs.3,681/- which can be set off against rs.3,988/- said to be the balance amount to be returned by the opposite parties to the complainant. therefore, the loan amount is fully discharged. the sale amount is not disclosed by the opposite parties. therefore, since the complainants loan amount is fully discharged, the vehicle or its value has to be returned to the complainant; but the particulars are not furnished by the opposite parties. considering all these, we feel that a sum of rs.40,000/- would be the reasonable amount which ought to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant towards the deficiency in service and for monetary loss suffered by the complainant.. 14. the district forum has directed the opposite parties to return the documents relating to the vehicle which is unnecessary since the vehicle is already sold in auction and so the question of returning the documents does not arise. further, the district forum has not ordered any amount towards the value of the vehicle and the money paid by the complainant to the opposite parties (rs.40,000/-) and the monetary loss suffered by the complainant. hence the order of the district forum has to be modified accordingly. 15. in the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the district forum is modified, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of rs.40,000/- (rupees forty thousand only) to the complainant towards the monetary loss and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; and a sum of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony; and to pay costs of rs.1,000/- in the complaint. the opposite parties shall pay costs of rs.5,000/- in the appeal. time for compliance: two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Judgment:

J. Jayaram, Judicial Member

This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam in C.C.43/2008, dated 21-04-2010, allowing the complaint.2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Motorcycle by availing loan from the opposite parties and there was default in the payment of last three EMIs. The opposite parties, without intimating him and without his knowledge, stealthily took away the motorcycle from the complainants sisters house and without intimating him sold the vehicle in auction. When he approached the opposite parties, they did not respond properly and there was no response to his letter to the opposite parties. So, he sent an advocates notice to which the opposite parties replied that the vehicle was sold in auction and the balance amount after satisfying the dues for the loan, a sum of Rs.3,988/- which is due to be paid to the complainant remains with them. All these, amount to deficiency in service on their part, and hence the complaint.

3. According to the opposite parties, the complainant expressed his difficulty in repaying the last six EMIs and he voluntarily surrendered the motorcycle to the opposite parties and intimation was sent to the complainant regarding repossession and auction sale of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and directing the opposite parties to collect the pending dues of EMIs from the complainant and to hand over the documents relating to the vehicle to the complainant and further directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by this impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

5. The contention of the complainant / respondent is that he had to pay only the last three EMIs to the appellants / opposite parties and he has already paid Rs.40,000/- in total and there was some delay in making payment of the last three EMIs to the opposite parties and he had given the vehicle to his sisters husband for his use. The opposite parties, without giving any intimation and without giving notice of repossession of the vehicle, they stealthily took away the vehicle from his sisters house and sold it in auction.

6. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties have not issued any intimation or any notice to the complainant before repossession of the vehicle and the opposite parties have stealthily taken away the vehicle from the complainants sisters house without informing them about the repossession. The opposite parties have not produced the essential documents such as statement of accounts, notice for repossession, notice for sale and they have not disclosed the amount already paid by the complainant, and the balance amount due, and the sale amount etc. There is no evidence on record to establish that the opposite parties sent any notice or intimation to the complainant before repossessing the vehicle and likewise before the auction sale of the motorcycle, and so the contention of the opposite parties that they sent notices in advance to the complainant is unacceptable and untenable.

7. Another submission of the opposite parties is that the complainant himself voluntarily handed over the vehicle to the opposite parties, is not substantiated and is not worthy of acceptance.

8. Furthermore, the opposite parties have silently sold the vehicle in auction without giving any intimation or notice to the complainant. Thus the opposite parties have committed a criminal offence and they have not followed the due procedure known to law.

9. It is relevant to note that according to the complainant, he has to repay only the last three EMIs and he has already paid Rs.40,000/- to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not produced any document to show the amount remitted by the complainant so far and the balance amount due, the sale amount etc. Even in their version, proof affidavit and the reply notice, these particulars are not furnished. Therefore, we have to infer that the complainants averments are true and the particulars mentioned in the complaint reflect the correct position which has to be accepted.

10. The opposite parties would further contend that the motorcycle was sold in auction and after set-off a sum of Rs.3,988/- remains with them due to be returned to the complainant. Considering all these, we hold that repossession of the vehicle without notice and selling the vehicle in auction without notice and not returning the balance amount to the complainant and not returning the documents amount to gross deficiency in service.

11. The District Forum has allowed the complaint passing an order directing the opposite parties to return the documents relating to the vehicle on receiving any amount if due from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship etc. and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-.

12. As stated supra, it is submitted by the opposite parties that they have to return a sum of Rs.3,988/- to the complainant and therefore, the question of collecting the remaining dues from the complainant does not arise.

13. We come to know that the complainant has paid Rs.40,000/- by way of EMIs and according to the complainant, he has to pay only three EMI instalments each of Rs.1,927/- totaling Rs.3,681/- which can be set off against Rs.3,988/- said to be the balance amount to be returned by the opposite parties to the complainant. Therefore, the loan amount is fully discharged. The sale amount is not disclosed by the opposite parties. Therefore, since the complainants loan amount is fully discharged, the vehicle or its value has to be returned to the complainant; but the particulars are not furnished by the opposite parties. Considering all these, we feel that a sum of Rs.40,000/- would be the reasonable amount which ought to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant towards the deficiency in service and for monetary loss suffered by the complainant..

14. The District Forum has directed the opposite parties to return the documents relating to the vehicle which is unnecessary since the vehicle is already sold in auction and so the question of returning the documents does not arise. Further, the District Forum has not ordered any amount towards the value of the vehicle and the money paid by the complainant to the opposite parties (Rs.40,000/-) and the monetary loss suffered by the complainant. Hence the order of the District Forum has to be modified accordingly.

15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is modified, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the complainant towards the monetary loss and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; and a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony; and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- in the complaint. The opposite parties shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- in the appeal. Time for compliance: Two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.