Libra Finance Ltd. vs Kulwinder Singh

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Libra Finance Ltd. against the order dated 08.08.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.1377 of 2007.

Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the respondent/complainant has taken a loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from the petitioner opposite party for taking a vehicle on hire purchase on 6.01.2003. The vehicle was repossessed by the petitioner in the year 2005 alleging that there was a balance of about Rs,31,000/- which was to be paid by the respondent. Respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.CC/264/2006 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, (in short 'the District Forum') and the District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

"For the foregoing reasons and discussion above we accept the complaint and quash the act of seizure of the truck and sale of the same by means. Complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.20 lakh for suffering due to the fault of the Opposite party. The truck was financed for Rs.2,25,000/-. Therefore, we direct the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three Lakhs) with interest at the rate of 9% from the dt. 16/05/05 till realization which includes the value of the truck which was financed as well as mental agony, harassment & cost of the petition."

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal No.1377/2007 before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal by its order dated 08.08.2012.

Hence the present revision petition.

Herd the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was no illegality committed by the petitioner in repossessing the vehicle because the same was done as per the hypothecation agreement which provides that if instalments become due then vehicle can be repossessed and sold to recover the dues. It was stated that the compensation granted by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission is more than the loan amount itself for which there is no justification. When the vehicle was repossessed there was dues of about Rs.31,000/- on the complainant which was not being paid by him despite several reminders. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the orders passed by the fora below cannot be sustained.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the complainant had already paid the total amount of the loan and there was nothing outstanding. Thus, opposite party did not have any right to repossess the vehicle. As the total amount was paid, the vehicle had become the property of the complainant and therefore, the District Forum has awarded the cost of the vehicle along with compensation for mental agony and harassment.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and have examined the record. Even if the assertion of the petitioner is considered that there was a dues of about Rs.31,000/- when the vehicle was repossessed, it means that the complainant would have become owner of the vehicle, had he paid Rs.31,000/-. It has not been clarified by the petitioner that at what price the vehicle has been sold. Therefore, the complainant is definitely entitled to the cost of the vehicle minus Rs.31,000/-. Treating the cost as Rs.2,25,000/-, the same comes to Rs.1,94,000/-. Obviously, the complainant has suffered mental agony and loss of his livelihood for sometime and therefore, he is entitled to some compensation on this account. I quantify this compensation to be Rs.46,000/-. Thus, the respondent complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,40,000/-from the petitioner.

Based on the above discussion, the revision petition no.848 of 2013 is partly accepted and the order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the petitioner opposite party will pay a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the respondent complainant instead of Rs.3,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission. The order of the District Forum as modified by this order is confirmed. The order be complied with by the opposite party/petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt/service of this order.