1. FACTUAL matrix of this case in brief are that a T.V.S Motorcycle was purchased by the complainant, Shri Sanjay Dutt on hire purchase basis by availing finance from M/s. Capital Trust Ltd. At the time of delivery, the complainant paid margin money of Rs. 18,438 against Rs. 43,435, price of the vehicle. The balance was to be paid in equal monthly instalments. It is the case of the complainant that he had paid Rs. 33,920 till July 2005. Subsequently, the hire purchaser forcibly took possession of the vehicle and sold the same, forcing the consumer to file a complaint before the District Forum.
2. THE financier contended that the cost of the vehicle is Rs. 43.435 against which the amount financed was Rs. 30,000 and amount paid was Rs. 18,435. The hire purchaser submitted before the District Forum that as the complainant had not paid the amount, he was served with the notice. However, they denied that any force was used.
3. DISTRICT Forum disbelieved the contention of the respondent that no force was used and directed the opposite parties, the trader and financier to pay to the complainant the admitted amount of Rs. 33,920 paid by complainant himself in addition to Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 towards cost of litigation.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, M/s. Capital Trust Ltd. filed an appeal before the State Commission.
4. THE State Commission held that it is a case of taking the possession of the vehicle with force for non -payment of two instalments against loan raised by the complainant for purchase of vehicle, which was sold by the hirer purchaser. The State Commission did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.
5. DISSATISFI ED by the order of the State Commission, the financier, had filed this Revision Petition before us. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have re -possessed the vehicle as the hirer purchase agreement had authorized them to re -possess the same in case of default. It is not their case that the complainant/consumer had come to their office and voluntarily surrendered the vehicle. We see from the records that they had issued a notice to the complainant, inter alia, as follows:.
"As per our records, your instalments have become overdue. We have been unable to recover this amount from you in spite of our best efforts. We kindly request you to clear your dues immediately. In the event of yours not making the payments to us and your account remaining out of order, we shall be constrained to take appropriate action such as filing police complaints, filing civil/criminal complaints, recall of our loan, repossession of vehicle, etc. at your risk and cost". (Emphasis supplied)
6. THERE is no proof of their having filing police complaint, civil complaints, criminal complaints, etc. Instead of resorting to remedies as per rule of law they have taken high handed action for re -possessing the vehicle by use of force. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has filed dates of events along with Revision Petition, in which second entry dated 17.6.2004 reads as follows:
"Vehicle in question was seized by the petitioner."
7. IN this connection, it is worthwhile to quote the judgment of this Commission in Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi, III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC), wherein it was held as under:
"Hire Purchase Agreement - A. 1. When a vehicle is purchased by a person (consumer) by borrowing money from the money lender/financier/banker, the consumer is the owner of the vehicle and not the money lender/financier/banker, unless the ownership is transferred.
2. In a democratic country having well established independent judiciary and having various laws it is impermissible for the money lender/financier/banker to take possession of the vehicle for which loan is advanced, by use of force.
3. Legal or judicial process may be slow but it is no excuse for employing musclemen to repossess the vehicle for which loan is given. Such type of instant justice'' cannot be permitted in a civilized society where there is effective rule of law. Otherwise, it would result in anarchy, that too, when the borrower retorts and uses the force.
B. 1. A hire -purchase agreement is a normal one under which owner hires goods to another party called the hirer and further agrees that the hirer shall have an option to purchase the chattel when he has paid a certain sum, or when the hire -rental payments have reached the hire -purchase price stipulated in the agreement.
2. As against this, when a person desires to purchase vehicle/goods and not having sufficient money on hand, borrows the amount needed from a money lender/financier/banker and pays it over to the vender of the vehicle, the transaction between the consumer and the money lender will unquestionably be a loan transaction. In such a case the vehicle purchased by the consumer is registered in the name of the consumer and remains at all material times so registered in his name. The consumer remains qua the world at large the owner and remains in possession of the vehicle. By an agreement the vehicle can be given as security for the loan advanced. In such a case, the right to seize the vehicle is merely a licence to ensure compliance with the terms of the so -called hire purchase agreement (Re. AIR 1966 SC 1178).
C. It is to be stated that many financiers banks are in race for giving loan for purchase of vehicles or various articles. After giving loan and taking interest in advance, the polite behaviour changes because of the documents which are signed on the dotted lines by the borrower. On occasions, borrower suffers harassment, torture, or abuses at the hands of the musclemen of the money lender. Such a behaviour is required to be prohibited and the process of repossession is required to be streamlined so as to fit in cultural civilized society. Let the rule of law prevail and not that of jungle where might is right.The National Commission analysed the following judgments: 1. In Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. v. Jagmander Singh and Anr., II (2007) CPJ 45 (SC)=127 (2006) DLT 278 (SC)=II (2006) SLT 166=II (2006) BC 108 (SC)=(2006) 2 SCC 598. 2. In ICICI Bank v. Prakash Kaur and Ors., 138 (2007) DLT 248 (SC)=III (2007) SLT 1=I (2007) DLT (Crl.) 865 (SC)=I (2007) CCR 538 (SC)=(2007) 2 SCC 711. 3. In the case of Dr. Amitabh Verma v. Commissioner of Police and Ors., 100 (2002) DLT 581 (DB) (Delhi High Court). 4. In Tarun Bhargava v. State of Haryana and Anr., AIR 2003 P and H 98.
The Commission, inter alia, held that the entire action of the appellant, Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. -"was illegal, arbitrary and criminal in nature and requires to be visited with punitive damages besides refunding the market value of the vehicle with interest. We dismiss the appeal and impose a punitive damages of Rs. 50,000 which shall be paid to the respondent for the mental agony, harassment and humiliation she suffered before her neighbours, friends and relatives at the hands of such an unscrupulous and uncouth provider of service. In the result appeal is dismissed with aforesaid order. Payment shall be made within one month."
8. THEREFORE , the ratio of the above case is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, we dismiss this Revision Petition. As the petitioner has dragged the matter upto the level of the National Commission; we award Rs. 25,000 as exemplary cost to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
