Decided on May 04,2009

Rafi Mohammad Appellant


ARUN KUMAR GOEL - (1.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are, that vehicle bearing registration No. HP -33B -0215 was financed by OP Nos. 1 to 3 in the sum of Rs. 5,72,013. This amount was payable in equated 47 monthly instalments of Rs. 13,800 by the appellant. These instalments were worked out after including interest, etc. At the time of hearing learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance that instalments due from 1.8.2004 to May, 2005 were regularly paid, except the instalment that was payable in March, 2005.
(2.) THIS vehicle was taken over by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 24.7.2005 by use of force according to Mr. Mehta learned Counsel for the appellant. This stand on behalf of the appellant was seriously contested by Mrs. Anu Tuli, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. According to her vehicle was not taken over from the appellant by her clients. Rather the appellant had already transferred the financed vehicle under an agreement to one Sh. Raj Ali for a sale consideration of Rs. 3 lacs from whom it was taken over when default persisted. Further according to Mrs. Tuli before taking over the vehicle, her clients had issued notice Annexure R -4. As per this notice dated 2.7.2005, defaulted instalments were in the sum of Rs. 39,700. Appellant was further informed vide notice, copy whereof is Annexure R -5 dated 26.12.2005 that total outstanding amount due and payable by him was Rs. 4,93,540. There is nothing on record to suggest that any of these notices were ever acknowledge/replied to by the appellant. Though Mr. Mehta submitted that after vehicle had taken over by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, his client had deposited Rs. 30,000 in cash, but was not issued any receipt. Therefore according to him non -return of vehicle and its sale thereafter is not only illegal and arbitrary but it also deprived his client of his livelihood. These actions of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 tantamount to both deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. There is nothing on record to even remotely establish the payment of Rs. 30,000 in cash as alleged by the appellant, therefore the plea of Mr. Mehta is hereby rejected.
(3.) FACED with this situation Mr. Mehta drew our attention to Annexure F -6 whereby he had intimated respondent No. 4 not to issue duplicate copy of registration certificate of vehicle Swaraj Mazda which is subject matter of this appeal on 7th January, 2006. Thus by having issued the duplicate registration certificate as also having transferred the vehicle according to Mr. Mehta, respondent No. 4 acted illegally and contrary to instructions of his client. In this behalf learned ADA pointed out that on receipt form Nos. 29, 30 and 35, as well as affidavit dated 7.1.2006 of the appellant Annexure D, action of his client cannot be questioned. He also referred to the affidavit of the transferee Raj Kumar, copy Annexure E. On the basis of these documents, we find no infirmity, so far as action of respondent No. 4 in transferring the vehicle to Raj Kumar is concerned. These documents are at pages 81 to 85 of the complaint file. It may be noted here that except for Form No. 35, all other documents are not only signed, but are also dated. Only form No. 35 is undated.;

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