Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Sandeep Kumar & Anr. (NCDRC Delhi)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) have agreed to the decisions of the State Commission wherein it was observed that OPs have took the vehicle forcefully from the possession of the Complainant and as per the Judgment of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and Ors ( 2007) 2 SCC 711, proper legal procedure have to be followed pertaining to recovery of loans of seizure of vehicles.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 14.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’).
Brief facts of the case, were that Complainant purchased Sonalika Tractor on 23 .01.2007 from OP No.3. OP No.2 (before the District Forum) had provided financial support through its branch at Allahabad and for this purpose loan was provided amount to the tune of Rs.2,01,753/- to the complainant and for this purpose an agreement to sale was also executed on 30.11.2007. The loan was to be repaid in 30 monthly installments and each monthly installment was of 9025/-. Complainant continued paying the monthly installment of the loan amount taken but due to some reason, certain instalments were not paid. IBHF took the tractor of the complainant on 01.04.2009 forcibly in their possession from its driver Rakesh Pasi. On being approached by the cousin brother of the complainant, it was informed that few installments of tractor has not been paid due to which tractor has been taken into possession and employees of the IBHF scolded his cousin and made him to go away. According to the complainant, tractor was taken by the OP without any prior intimation forcibly due to which he suffered a lot mentally as well as economically. Being aggrieved of the said act of the OP, complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum which partly allowed the Complaint. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, both Complainant and OPs filed Appeal No 2296 of 2013 and 272 of 2014 before State Commission. The State Commission vide common order dated 14.12.2017 dismissed both the appeals. The OP No.1 and 2 being aggrieved of the decision of the State Commission has filed RP before this Commission.
The National Commission observed that both State Commission and District Forum have given a well reasoned order and given a concurrent findings about deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. District Forum has observed that OP has not filed copy of the legal notice dated 11.02.2009. The vehicle was taken over on 01.04.2009, intimation to police was sent on 05.04.2009 and notice to the complainant on 02.04.2009 i.e. after the possession was taken. Both Fora Below have given concurrent findings about the possession taken by the OPs being forceful. In this regard, State Commission has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and Ors ( 2007) 2 SCC 711, relevant extract of which is given below:
“28. In conclusion, we say that we are governed by a rule of law in the country. The recovery of loans of seizure of vehicles could be done only through the legal means. The banks cannot employ goondas to take possession by force.”
District Forum has also clearly observed after taking note of the documents produced on record before it that complainant has defaulted in repayment of three instalments. District Forum further observes that in case of default of repayment, the financer has a right to take over the possession of the vehicle but the contract agreement does not give authority to the financer to take over the possession of the vehicle forcefully. Both District Forum and State Commission have duly taken note of the various contentions raised by the OPs.
Further, keeping in view the observations made in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra), the National Commission agree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below.
In view of the above, Revision Petition was dismissed.
Comments are closed.