V.K.PATIL,MEMBER - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 19.6.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred for short as œDistrict Forum ) in Complaint Case No. 178/2011, whereby complaint of the complainant, alleging deficiency in service against OP finance company owing to repossession of his vehicle, was allowed directing OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,01,680 towards loss of income alongwith interest @ 6% p.a, from 30.4.2011 and also to pay the sale price of the questioned vehicle Rs.80,000 with interest @ 6% from the date of filing complaint. OP was also directed to pay Rs.20,000 towards mental agony and cost of litigation Rs.2,000.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Tata AC Van having registration no.C.G.04/JA3707, cost of which was Rs.2,40,895. Complainant had paid Rs.30,895 as margin money and balance amount Rs.2,10,000 was got financed from OP No.2 which was the zonal office of OP No.1. The financed amount was repayable in 47 EMI installments @ Rs.6,040 during period 2.7.2007 to 2.5.2011. As per averment of the complainant, he had been making repayment of installments regularly but OP1 repossessed the vehicle in October 2010 forcibly through its employees when 39 installments had already been paid. Complainant further averred that OPs had written a letter dated 29.10.2010 to him demanding Rs.15,836 within 48 hours and threatened that in case of failure, the vehicle would be sold but he expressed his inability to deposit the demanded amount in so short period and requested OPs that he would be able to deposit the demanded amount only after utilizing the vehicle. OP No. 1 assured him that after discussion with OP No.2, the vehicle would be delivered, but thereafter no response was received and he received a letter dated 27.1.2011 intimating him about termination of the loan agreement and was demanded Rs.94,087 whereas he had already repaid 39 installments for Rs.2,35,507 and also additional amount Rs.5,720 in all total Rs.2,41,280. Subsequently OPs repossessed the vehicle without providing sufficient opportunity to the respondent/complainant. Complainant further averred that only eight installments amounting Rs.48,320 were left to be paid, but the act of OPs created problem in earning livelihood, as a result he and his family had to face financial hardship and mental agony. Complainant prayed before the District Forum seeking direction to OPs to provide him a new vehicle in lieu of his repossessed vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 towards financial loss and Rs.1,00,000 towards mental agony and also to refund the deposited amount towards repayment installments with additional charges. He also prayed for interest @ 18% from the date of repossession till the date of payment.
(3.) OPS in its reply averred that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose as was mentioned in the loan agreement and contract detail agreement, besides that in the Registration certificate also it was mentioned as ˜goods vehicle as such the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, so the complainant was not a consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act. OPs also averred that the complaint was in respect of settlement of account which required evidence in details and could not be decided by summary trial, thus could be decided by a Civil Court. Moreover as per finance agreement, in case of any dispute between the parties, it could be decided by an arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Act 1996. As per averment of OPs, the complainant had entered into an agreement on 30.5.2007 whereby amount financed was Rs.2,10,000 and handling charges Rs.73,880 were also payable, as such total Rs.2,83,880 was recoverable in 47 EMI @ Rs.6,040 during period 2.7.2007 to 2.5.2011 and in the event of default in repayment of installments, complainant was also liable to pay delay and other charges, OPs further averred that earlier also as on 5.2.2008 Rs.17,580 was accumulated as the outstanding loan dues so on 5.3.2008 pre -repossession intimation was given to the Police Thana Khamtarai, Raipur and thereafter the vehicle was repossessed but on getting assurance from the complainant that he would clear off the outstanding dues, the vehicle was released to him. The complainant again committed default thus a legal notice was sent to him on 4.3.2010 for depositing outstanding dues but he failed to do so, therefore the vehicle was repossessed on 25.10.2010 and a pre -sale notice was sent to him on 29.10.2010. As per foreclosure statement an amount of Rs.94,087 was outstanding as on 27.1.2011 which was demanded from the complainant but he failed to clear off the same so the vehicle was sold for Rs.80,000 by way of auction after proper valuation and the same was adjusted in his loan account. OPs averred that it committed no deficiency in service, so prayed for dismissal of the complainant. Learned District Forum after perusal of the documents produced before it and having heard arguments of parties allowed the complaint, as per the impugned order.;