Loan Default Justifies Repossession: Consumer Forum Rules Against Complainant.
18 October 2024
Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law | Consumer Complaints >> Civil & Consumer Law
A protracted legal battle between a truck purchaser and a financing company has concluded with the dismissal of the purchaser's complaint, as determined by consumer redressal forums. The dispute between Jackey Sharma Vs Branch Manager, Tata Motors Limited, Chhattisgarh., centered on the repossession of a truck, purchased with a loan, and the subsequent sale of the vehicle.
Background:
In 2006, the Petitioner/Complainant acquired a Tata truck, financed by the Respondent/Opposite Party through an Rs. 11 lakh loan. The repayment schedule stipulated a total amount of Rs. 12,67,200, to be settled within four years. The Complainant asserted that he had repaid approximately 90% of the loan, around Rs. 10,86,839, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,80,361. However, the Respondent repossessed the truck in June 2010, allegedly without prior notice, claiming outstanding dues. The Complainant further alleged that the truck contained goods worth Rs. 3,20,000 at the time of repossession.
Legal Proceedings and Contentions:
The Complainant filed a complaint seeking compensation for the lost goods, financial losses, and a refund of the paid loan amount. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) initially dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, the State Commission remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
During the remanded proceedings, the Respondent justified the repossession, citing Clause 18.1 of the loan agreement, which permitted repossession in case of payment defaults. They presented evidence of informing the police and issuing post-possession notices. The Respondent also stated that the truck was empty at the time of repossession and was later sold for Rs. 3,50,000.
The Complainant countered by presenting a receipt for Rs. 3,20,000, purportedly for the lost goods, and payment records indicating substantial loan repayment. They argued that the repossession was unjustified, given the near-complete loan repayment.
Key Findings and Judgement:
The DCDRC and the State Commission scrutinized the evidence, including the repossession documents and the disputed receipt for the goods. The forums concluded that the repossession was conducted legally, adhering to the loan agreement terms. They found no credible evidence supporting the Complainant's claim of lost goods, as the police records indicated an empty truck at the time of repossession. The receipt presented by the Complainant lacked specific details regarding the alleged goods.
The forums also noted the existence of an arbitration award, rendered during the pendency of the consumer complaint, which recognized the outstanding dues owed by the Complainant.
Conclusion:
Based on the evidence presented and the legal arguments, the consumer redressal forums upheld the Respondent's actions, finding no deficiency in their service. The forums dismissed the Complainant's claims, concluding that the repossession was valid and that no substantial evidence supported the claim of lost goods. The revision petition, which challenged the lower court’s rulings, was also dismissed due to a lack of merit.