Decided on December 10,2009

BHIM SINGH Appellant
Director Seeraj Leasing And Finance Pvt Ltd And Ors Respondents


- (1.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are that vehicle bearing registration No.HR -38 -E -5836 was financed -by respondent No.1. Appellant admits that he had purchased this vehicle after depositing Rs. 1,70,000 as margin money and the balance sum of Rs.3,45,000 was the amount financed by respondent No.1. This amount was to be repaid in equated monthly instalments of Rs. 13,500 each. Further case set out in the complaint by the appellant was, that he had been regularly paying instalments upto May, 2003. This stand was seriously contested on behalf of respondent No.1, the financier. Appellant claims to have fallen ill with some disease and was not in a position to ply the vehicle and thus could not pay the instalments in time.
(2.) NOW the dispute starts. As per averments made in the complaint, respondent No.2 tactfully removed vehicle from the custody of the appellant from his village Bijani, where it was parked. Appellant further admits that he was informed on 27.5.2003 by respondent No.1, however his further case is that he requested to return the vehicle to him and assured to deposit all the instalments regularly in future. This request was without consequence. To the contrary, he was made to sign blank papers and was assured that possession of the repossessed vehicle will be handed over back to him. Appellant further alleges that on 30.11.2004, he approached OP No.1 after the vehicle had been repossessed by it in the month of May, 2003. To his shock, he learnt at that point of time that vehicle had been transferred/ sold by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 3. This respondent is present in Court and stated that he has further sold this vehicle long ago.
(3.) IN this background, Consumer Complaint No.213/2005 was filed by the appellant with a prayer to direct the OPs to hand over the vehicle. On the failuio to do the needful, appellant asked for payment of cost of vehicle, besides Rs.2,00,000 as loss of earning of his livelihood, legal action was also prayed in the event of the vehicle having been sold to respondent No. 3 by respondents 1 and 2. Litigation cost and for harassment etc. Rs. 50,000 was also prayed for. So far respondent No.2 is concerned, his stand before the District Forum, as well as before us is that he has no concern either with the appellant or with respondent No.1. All the averments made against him are incorrect and he has denied those for want of knowledge. Further according to this respondent, he has no concern any whatsoever with the transaction between the appellant and respondent No.1 and he has been wrongly impleaded as party.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.