- (1.) THE complainant s case is that the complainant had entered into an Hire Purchase Agreement with reference to his Lorry bearing Regn. No. T. No. 3258. The present value of the lorry is Rs. 2,50,000/ -. According to the terms of the hire purchase agreement, he has to pay @ 4,300/ - for the first 10 months and @ Rs. 4,100/ - for the next 10 months. On account of his sudden illness, the complainant went to the opposite party in person and informed his position and paid a sum of Rs. 4,300/ - on 23.12.1995 and Rs. 3,500/ - on 6.2.1996. He has also informed them about his health condition stating, therefore, he was not in a position to make regular payments of instalments. While so, the lorry was seized by the opposite party without notice to the complainant on 27.2.1996. The complainant with the sum of Rs. 13,000/ - went along with some respectable persons and after paying the amount, requested the opposite party to handover the lorry to him. At that time, the opposite party threatened the complainant and obtained his signatures in a stamp paper for the value of Rs. 10/ -. The opposite party has informed in their letter dated 25.3.1996 that unless the complainant pays the dues the lorry will be sold without notice to the complainant and the complainant was directed to make payment before 23.3.1996. The complainant issued a notice to the opposite party to handover the lorry to him and also to pay compensation for which they have not sent any reply. Hence, the complaint.
(2.) THE opposite party filed version stating as follows: The complainant is not a consumer and the dispute is not a consumer dispute. The rights of the parties are governed by the Hire Purchase Agreement. The allegation that the vehicle is worth about Rs. 2,50,000/ - is not true. The further allegation that the signatures were obtained in a blank stamp paper is also not true. The lorry was purchased on 23.9.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/ -. While so, to say that its value is Rs. 2,50,000/ - is ridiculous. On 23.9.1995 the complainant entered into an agreement with this opposite party for a sum of Rs. 84,000/ - which was payable in 10 monthly instalments of Rs. 4,300/ - and another 10 monthly instalments of Rs. 4,100/ - commencing from 23.10.1995. He also borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as a loan under the duly executed promissory note and he had repaid only a sum of Rs. 7,800/ - leaving the entire balance amount due to the opposite party under the Hire Purchase Agreement and the loan transaction. He has himself admitted that he was in arrears of instalments. Therefore, rightly the lorry was repossessed at considerable cost by the opposite party and was sold in auction and after giving credit for the amount already paid by the complainant. The total amount due to the opposite party including taxes, godown rent, and other amounts paid and expenses incurred comes to Rs. 1,18,401/ -. A telegram informing the seizure was also issued to the opposite party. The complainant promised to settle the due and paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - on 23.3.1996 and undertook to pay the balance within one month. Therefore, a notice was issued on 25.3.1996. When the complainant did not keep up his promises, despite several reminders, the lorry was sold for a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - on 29.11.1996. Even after giving credit, there is still a balance of Rs. 58,410/ -. The opposite party is taking separate steps before a competent Court. There is no deficiency in service. Hence, the opposite party prays the complaint be dismissed with cost.
(3.) THE lower Forum dismissed the complaint by its order dated 14.10.1998. Hence, the appeal by the complainant. From the very complaint, it is clear that the complainant having entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement and having undertaken to pay the instalments, failed to pay the same. Further, on the complainant own showing, it is clear that he has paid only a sum of Rs. 4,300/ - on 23.12.1995 and Rs. 3,500/ - on 6.2.1996. Whereas he had availed of a loan of Rs. 60,000/ - on 23.9.1995. He has to repay the sum of Rs. 60,000/ - in 20 monthly instalments whereas the very first payment was made by him only on 23.12.1995 and the 2nd payment was made on 6.2.1996. He has clearly admitted in the complaint that he could not pay the instalments due. It is also the admitted case of the parties and evident from the records that the lorry was taken possession of by the opposite party. After re -possession of the lorry by the opposite party, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 13,000/ - on 22.3.1996. According to the opposite party, the complainant promised to settle the balance within a month thereof. Therefore, the opposite party issued a notice on 25.3.1996 and intimating that unless the amount is paid, the vehicle will be sold. By virtue of the power granted under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the opposite party sold the vehicle by auction and according to them, it fetched a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - only in the auction. It is also the case of the opposite party that the complainant also borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - and executed a promissory note. The copy of the promissory note is also produced. Now, in the above background of admitted facts, we have to see whether there is any deficiency in service. On going through the materials placed by both the parties, we are satisfied that there is no deficiency in service. If the act of the opposite party in re -possessing the lorry is illegal or if the sale of the vehicle by the opposite party acting under the provisions of hire purchase is also alleged to be illegal, then the remedy of the complaint is to seek the assistance of a Civil Court. On the complainant s own showing, he has defaulted to pay the money and that as against the borrowal of Rs. 60,000/ -, he had paid only Rs. 7,800/ -. He had conceded that he was not in a position to pay the instalments. In fact, he had approached the opposite party with some mediators to request the opposite party to return the lorry. Admittedly, he had paid a sum of Rs. 13,000/ - on that day. According to the opposite party he promised to pay the balance within a month. But, he did not pay. Therefore, they wrote a letter to the complainant informing him about the same and expressing their intention to sell the lorry. Therefore, whatever that has been done by the opposite party have been done pursuant to the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement and because of the default committed by the complainant. In such circumstances, a complaint of this nature is not maintainable. When pursuant to a subsisting contract between the parties, an act is done the complainant cannot seek the remedy of this Forum for a direction to the opposite party to return the lorry and without making any payment. The complainant had executed a document under Ex. B8 promising to pay the balance within a month. In spite of it, he did not pay. The opposite party waited and sold the vehicle in the month of November. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no basis at all for the complainant to say that there has been any deficiency in service. The complainant cannot get over the terms of the hire purchase agreement by merely labelling the act of the opposite party as a deficiency in service and resort to this Forum. The proper remedy of the complainant would have been to approach the Civil Court and seek an injunction or any appropriate relief. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal.;