National consumer disputes redressalcommission new delhi


Download 3.18 Mb.
Size3.18 Mb.
1   ...   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   ...   66



M/s.  N.L.P. Organics Pvt.  Ltd. A-590/B, Bhiwadi Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Dist. Alwar (Rajasthan) Through Sh. Anil Bahl, Managing Director

               …  Complainant 



1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Bank, Central Office 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600001 

2. The General Manager (IRRD) Indian Bank, Central Office, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600001 

3. The Zonal Manager Indian Bank, Upper  Ground Floor World Trade Centre, Babar Road New Delhi – 110001 

4. The Assistant General Manager (Delhi Region) Indian Bank, Upper  Ground Floor World Trade Centre, Babar Road New Delhi – 110001 

5.  The Chief Manager Indian Bank, G-6, South Extn.-I, New Delhi

…. Opposite Parties





For the Complainant   :  Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Advocate

For the Opp. Parties     :   Mr. Himanshu  Munshi, Advocate

 PRONOUNCED ON _14th  JULY, 2014



1.      The key controversy swirls around the short question, “Whether, the complainant is a ‘consumer’, under section 2(d)(i) of C.P.Act?”. The present complaint was filed in this Commission on 11.03.1999.  M/s. N.L.P. Organics Pvt. Ltd.,   Bhiwadi, used to enjoy the credit facilities from the Indian Bank, through its Chief Manager, OP5, for carrying on its business  activities and dealings in pharmaceuticals and supplying the medicines to Inland as well as foreign buyers. The complainant requested OP5 vide letter dated 18.04.1999 to sanction the rehabilitation package on its declaring as the sick unit, but on the contrary, the Bank, vide its letter dated 02.03.1995, did not accede to its request.  The  said fact was conveyed to the complainant  vide letters of OP5, dated 08.01.1995 to 15.03.1995, and requested  the complainant that  it  could  accept  the  rehabilitation package as per the calculation as a cut-off dated on 31.03.1994  and  not 31.03.1995. 


2.      OP5 vide  its letter dated  02.03.1995, though  sanctioned the

open   Cash  Credit Limit  and  export packing credit limit  to the total

sum of  Rs.10.00  lakhs,  in favour  of  the complainant,  however,  only a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs  was  disbursed  and the remaining Rs.6.00 lakhs was debited in the account as  the  adjustments of some old out-standings and  thus the complainant  was  made  to  run the business within a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Consequently, the complainant could not meet out the requirements in the business and financially,  the  complainant  suffered serious setback in running the business.  Vide letter  dated  26.04.1995,  the  complainant wrote a letter to the Assistant General  Manager of the Bank and requested for immediate action so that  the  company  may not go sick again, but it did not ring the bell.


3.      On  the  contrary, OP5  continued to charge interest in Cash Credit Account at the higher rate of interest showing that  the limit is over drawn than the sanctioned limit.  Even the penal rate of interest was charged,   thus  increasing  the outstanding  balance in Cash Credit limit.  These facts were brought to the notice of the OP5 vide letter dated 08.01.1998 and recalculation of entire operations of the account from 31.03.1995  to 31.12.1997  was  submitted.  The  Bank refused to extend the Cash  Credit  Limit  in  favour  of  the complainant saying that the account  is  already  over drawn.  A sum of Rs.24.00 lakhs approximately was shown as the  interest  amount  which the Bank charged from time to time without any valid reason and without any intimation to  the complainant  company. This liability  further increased.  The complainant protested  vide letter dated 08.01.1998.  The debits thus shown in  the  account of  the complainant  company are unilateral and without the consent  and intimation of  the complainant.  The sales in the business  also  dropped  significantly  from 1.75 crores to Rs.60.00 lakhs.


4.      Under  the  rehabilitation  package  and  sanction dated 02.03.1995  it  was  agreed  to  create  funded  Interest  Term Loan Head (in short ‘ FITL) with a limit of  Rs.9.15 lakhs which excluded  interest and repayable  in monthly  installment of  Rs.30,000/- per month and was to charge interest rate @  10.50% p.a.   As per RBI guidelines, the Bank is not supposed to change any interest as the interest liability pertains  to  the sick industries.  It is alleged that OP5 started debiting the FITL installments  in  the current account of the complainant and thus charged  the  interest   rate  applicable in the current account  and as a  result of which the outstandings in the current account also increased  due  to interest   in the factory  only.  However, OP5 continued further charging  compoundable  interest thereon.  No concession was made  available  to the  complainant  company.  Though the agreement was  that the OP5  will  charge interest @ 10.50% p.a., yet, it charged interest on the FITL account  as applicable to the  current account  which was charged varying from 18.5% p.a. to 23% p.a.  Again, there was  no principal  amount   put  to  the disposal  of  the  complainant for its use in the business and the  whole  liability consisting of  interest  factor  only.  The cheques sent by the complainant were bounced illegally.


5.      The  complainant  company  exported  the  goods/medicines  worth Rs.25.00 lakhs to Vietnam against Irrevocable letter of credit through  the Bank and advanced  Rs.20.00 lakhs against the above said Letter of Credit but OP 5, again  recovered Rs.11.00 lakhs on the same day. The  complainant  company informed the General Manager, vide its letter dated  27.02.1997 alleging that Letter of Credit should have been opened as  promised  but  there  was  no response to the said letter.  The complainant  company  had to  suffer heavy losses. The complainant  requested  the  Bank to open the letter of credit because  all the formalities were done.  However, the Bank pressurized the complainant  to reimport  the material  in place of  taking any action.  The complainant,  thereafter, as a good  gesture and as the goods were of quality  product,  reimported  the  material  from Vietnam which was done in pursuance of the letter of the Bank, dated 06.08.1997.  The  complainant  company  took  lot  of steps  to take back the delivery of the goods from Vietnam and  also spent Rs.140.00  lakhs approximately  and  got  back  on 31.03.1998  from the Indian Customs.  The reimported goods were taken  into  custody by  OP5  and  the  same  were  kept in a separate  room under their lock and key.  OP5 was asked to release the  goods  under its custody so that the  same may  be  disposed of in the market.  They were also informed that the goods must be disposed by the end  of  November, 1998, otherwise,  the  complainant  company  would  not  be in a position to dispose of  the  same  and  to  fetch the maximum price of the medicines.  The complainant  did  not  receive  any  response.  Another letter was sent on 17.04.1998.  It was   also informed that the expiry date of all those goods  is  November, 1998.  The  value of  the  goods  was  Rs. 25.00 lakhs (approximately).  However,  OP5  failed  to deliver the goods to the   complainant company.


6.      OP5 vide  letter dated  31.07.1998  informed  the  complainant  that it could take the delivery of the goods as per its terms and conditions.  Vide its letter dated 08.08.1998, the complainant  showed  its  inability  to pay the interest on the goods within a period of two months.  The  cheque  issued  for the salary of staff also  stood  bounced.  The complainant had to borrow the money from the market.  Vide letter dated 10.12.1998, protest was made to the Bank.  Ultimately, the present complaint was filed and compensation in the sum of Rs.70.00 lakhs along with interest @ 24% p.a., pendentilite and future interest, was filed.  It was also prayed that the costs of the case should also be awarded to the complainant.  The complainant has given the details of compensation, as follows :-

(i)  Loss of business because of non-availability of funds and that that too because of mal- practice and unfair trade practice by the Bank                   Rs. 45,00,000/-

(ii) Loss due to not providing the consignment of reimported Goods Rs.   5,00,000/-

(iii) Loss of reputation in Business circle Rs.   5,00,000/-

(iv) Damage and loss of reputation in dishonouring the cheques                                    Rs.  5,00,000/-

 (v) Damages, mental and physical agony caused to the Directors                        Rs. 10,00,000/-


                             Total                        Rs. 70,00,000/-



 7.      The OPs 1 to 5 have listed the following defences in their  written version.  The complainant  is not a consumer.  No deficiency can be attributed  on  the part of  OP5. The  Bank  conducted business strictly in in accordance with the terms of the arrangement of cash credit loan facility  account.  The complainant should not be permitted to take advantage on  its  own wrong.  The adjustment of the part of the sanctioned limit against the outstanding liability does not constitute a breach of  the bank’s  obligation  towards  its debtors.  It is explained that  the  complainant  was  enjoying  the  credit  facilities  since  the year 1987,  but the performance of the complainant was not good.  In the month of  August, 1987,  the  complainant   applied for and requested the OP5  to grant  certain  credit facilities. On 28.12.1987, OCC facility  for  Rs.5.00 lakhs, DOCBP/DABP facilities for Rs.7.00 lakhs and performance  guarantee for  Rs.50,0000/-  was  granted on regular terms and conditions   which were duly explained to the complainant  and to which it readily agreed.  The Sanction Ticket dated 28.12.1987 has been placed on record as Annexure-1.  The Bank  granted additional Inland  LC  Facility to  the  tune of Rs.3.00 lakhs and continued other facilities to it except DOCBP facility which was suspended.  A copy of the sanction ticket dated 30.05.1989 has been placed on record as Annexure-2. 

 8.      Thereafter,  the complainant  failed to regularize its accounts. OP5, vide its letter dated 14.07.1990, called upon the complainant to clear liabilities standing in their OCC Account, Inland LC Account and BP Returned unpaid account,  amounting to the tune of Rs.6,93,165/-,      Rs. 1,73,190/- and Rs. 2,89,578/-, respectively.  OP5 vide letter dated 18.10.1994, sanctioned FBN/DP/DA (120 days) adhoc facility to the complainant, which letter has been placed on record as Annexure–3. The  complainant  approached  OP5  with renewal/rehabilitation proposal  and  in pursuance  thereto, sanction was granted vide Sanction Tickets dated  02.03.1995 & 29.03.1995  under OCC facility for Rs.10.00 lakhs, sub-limit FPC Facilities in the sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs, FBN/DP facilities in the sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs and sub-limit FBN/DA (90-120 days) for Rs. 10.00 lakhs and FOTL for Rs. 9.15 lakhs, Import letter of credit for Rs.7.00 lakhs and Bank Guarantee for Rs. 0.80 lakhs  were granted on regular terms and conditions  which were duly explained  to the  complainant  and  to which  it readily agreed.  A copy of the Sanction  ticket  dated  02.03.1995 has  been  placed on record as Annexure-4.  It is  explained  that the complainant at that point of time, did not disclose that  the relief so granted was not adequate or such facility or relief was not acceptable to it, but now, belatedly, the complainant is coming up with a new plea that due to OP5’s deficiency, it has suffered loss.

 9.      Thereafter,  the complainant requested OP5 for Bank Guarantee

to be given to the department of Customs.  OP5 issued letter of guarantee  No.08/96-97  dated 31.05.1996 for Rs.79,937/-, copy of which has been  placed on record as Annexure-5.   The complainant was identified as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.07.1997 and therefore, the non-realized interest was debited in a separate account called Memorandum of Interest Account.   The OP5  never  declared  the complainant as  sick  unit.  In fact, the complainant could not maintain the  financial  discipline in spite of rehabilitation  package  given to the complainant  and  the complainant, at no point of time, after accepting the package, had averred that the package was unfair, one-sided and unacceptable.  OP5, vide sanction ticket dated  02.03.1995 has put all the amount at the disposal of the complainant.   OP5  is bound by the guidelines  of  the RBI and that interest was charged as per the agreed  terms  and  conditions and the complainant  cannot now,  go  back  and complain  about the same.   

 10.    Again, the export documents were  having  certain discrepancies and were not  in conformity  with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit. It is, however, explained that this is a frivolous case for which no court fee has to be filed. On the contrary, OP filed Original Application being OA No. 539 of 1999 before theDebts Recovery Tribunal.   OP 5  has  filed a claim  of Rs.1,04,30,266.45 before the DRT.  During the arguments it was brought to the notice of this Commission that the said matter before the DRT already stands disposed of.  All the issues already stand adjudicated.   The DRT, vide its  detailed  judgment dated 17.02.2010 observed in Paras  Para 7.4 and 7.5,   as follows :-

7.4.  The next objection raised by the defendants is that the applicant bank is guilty of its own acts and conduct by approaching a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs out of the sanctioned CC limit of 10.00 lakhs vide sanction ticket dated 02.03.1995.

 In reply, the applicant bank in the replication has denied the assertion and stated that it was made clear to the defendant that as per sanction ticket dated 02.03.1995, the interest accumulated on the Open cash account was converted into funded interest on loan.  The applicant has denied that the applicant unilaterally debited Rs.6.00 lakhs and placed at the disposal of the defendant only Rs.4.00 lakhs and that the action of the defendant was strictly in accordance  with terms and arrangement of cash credit loan.  As already stated the banking industry has its own norms of maintaining the accounts.  When the loans are advanced, the returns are also expected.  In this view of the matter, the objection raised by the defendants is rejected.

7.5  The next objection raised by the defendants is that the applicant bank acted illegally in retaining the pledged goods of the value of Rs.25 lakhs after the same were imported from Vietnam which the respondent got back on 31.03.1998.  The goods were medicines and the expiry date of the same was November, 1998, but the Bank failed and neglected to release,  as a result, the defendant suffered loss of Rs.25 lacs.  The goods were of perishable nature”.


It was contended  that  the  complaint  be dismissed and exemplary costs on the complainant be imposed. 

 11.    Both the parties have submitted written synopses twice and raised considerable arguments in this summary case trial.  The principal question which falls for consideration is, whether, the complainant is a ‘consumer’?.  It is strange that the  complainant has referred  to the celebrated authority of Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.  It is contended  that  an  amendment in the year 1993 was made only on Section  2(1)(d)(i)  and  not on Section 2 (1)(d)(ii). It was argued by the counsel  for  the  complainant  that  by way of 1993 amendment, the commercial  aspect  was  not included in the ‘hiring and availing of services’.  It is  explained that the complainant company availed the  services  of  the  OP5, Bank, therefore, the amendment of 1993 is not applicable.  In Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CPA, 1986, the amendment was  brought  in the year 2002 akin to what was amended  in Section 2(1)(d)(i) in 1993.  Therefore,  the amendment  of  2002  excluding  the commercial hiring and availing of service  is not  applicable  in the present  case  as the case was  filed way back in the year 1999.

 12.    The arguments  averred  by the counsel for the complainant lack conviction.  Para 1 of the complaint runs as follows:-

That  the complainant had been enjoying the credit  facility from  the Opposite Party No.5 for carrying on its business activities and dealing in pharmaceuticals and supplying the

medicines to Inland as well as Foreign Buyers”.

Other relevant portions, we have already highlighted.


13.    At  the foot  of  Para  No.10, of  the authority, Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (Supra), it was  observed :-

Indeed, the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The Act provides for "business-to-consumer' disputes and not for "business-to- business" disputes. This scheme of the Act in our opinion, is relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that fall for consideration in this appeal”.


14.    Para No.11 of the judgment reads as follows :-

                       “Now coming back to the definition of the expression 'consumer' in Section 2(d), a consumer means 
 in  so far as is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, (i) a person who buys any goods for consideration; it is immaterial whether the consideration is paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or whether the payment of consideration is deferred; (ii) a person who uses such goods with the approval of  the  person  who buys such goods  for consideration  (iii)  but  does not include a person who buys such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The expression "resale" is clear enough. Controversy has, however, arisen with respect to meaning of the expression "commercial purpose". It is also not defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning. "Commercial" denotes "pertaining to commerce" (Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means "connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim" (Collins English Dictionary) whereas the word "commerce" means "financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale" (Concise Oxford Dictionary). The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods "with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit,       he will not be a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly with a view to obviate any confusion the expression "large-scale" is not a very precise expression the Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2(d)(i) by Ordinance/ Amendment Act, 1993. The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression "commercial purpose" - a case of exception to an exception. Let us elaborate: a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others' work for consideration or for plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the typewriter/car for a commercial purpose. The explanation however clarifies that in certain situations, purchase of goods for "commercial purpose" would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition o expression "consumer". If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earing his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a "consumer". In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself works on typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, he does not cease to be a consumer. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e., by self- employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a "commercial purpose" and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The explanation reduces the question, what is a "commercial purpose", to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., "uses  them by himself", "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood" and "by means of self-employment" make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasis what we say. A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. (In the above illustrations, if such buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer.) As against this a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation flowing from the expressions "used by him", and "by means of self-employment" in the explanation. The ambiguity in the meaning of the words "for the purpose of earning his livelihood" is explained and clarified by the other two sets of words”.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works (supra) further held, as under  :-

The expression " person" in Section 2(m) as including a firm (whether registered or not), a Hindu undivided family, a co-operative society or any other association of persons (whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not) makes no difference to the above interpretation. If a firm purchases the goods, the members of the firm should themselves ply, operate or use the goods purchased. Same would be the case of purchase by Hindu Undivided Family, cooperative society or any other association of persons”.

15.    It must be borne in mind that in Laxmi Engineering Works (supra),  judgments,  such  as, Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta,  (1994) 1 SCC 243, Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, were relied upon other judgments  to this  effect  titled, Synco Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. (1991) 1 CPJ 499, Secretary, Consumer Guidance and Research Society of India Vs. BPL India Ltd, (1992) 1 CPJ 140 (NC), Oswal Fine Arts Vs. HMT, (1991) 1 CPJ 330.

16.    It is thus clear that since the complainant is transacting business, therefore, he cannot  be  said  to  be  a  ‘consumer’.  The complaint  is  liable to be dismissed on this score. 

17.    The counsel for the complainant has raised so many other issues that  OPs  did  not produce the requisite  documents, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against them.  The complainant  was  entitled  to file the case before this Commission in view of  Nahar  Industrial Enterprises Limited. Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, (2009) 8 SCC 646.  It was also pointed out  that  the  before the amendment, the complainant was not entitled  to file counter-claim against the Bank.  It is contended that the Bank’s deficiency stands proved on the record. 


18.    To our mind,  all the issues pale into significance before us.  We  refrain  from  deciding  all these issues and dismiss the complaint  as  the  complainant is  not a ‘consumer’.

 19.  It  must  be  mentioned  here that the  complainant was misguided and ill-advised.  The Laxmi Engineering Works (supra) case was declared in the year 1995.  The case was filed four years subsequently.  Had  the  complainant  been a wee bit  vigilant, it would not have attempted to tilt against the windmills.  The complainant  has  wasted the  precious  time of this Commission for the last about  fifteen  years, including that  of the Apex Court, by filing a SLP, which was dismissed. 

 20.    We  are, under  the  circumstances, constrained to impose costs of  Rs.25,000/-  which be paid to the “Pay and Accounts Officer,  Ministry of Consumer Affairs,  New  Delhi”,  through the Registrar of this Commission, within 45 days from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 10% p.a., till realisation.  Registrar to report  about  compliance. 

 21.    However,   liberty is given to the  complainant  to  approach  the appropriate forum or civil court  for  getting redressal  of  its  grievances as per law and as per the observations made in  Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583, at  Para  23,  as under :-

The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed but without costs. If the appellant chooses to file a suit for the relief claimed in these proceedings, he can do so according to law and in such a case he can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit”.









(From the order dated 31.03.2011 in Appeal No.826 of 2010 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad)


Shyambahadursingh Gangasingh Rajput House No.105, Shayog Nagar Mograwadi,

Taluka- District, Valsad Gujarat

......... Petitioner


Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Sadhna House, Vareli, Mumbai, Maharashtra

......... Respondent



HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER                                           

For the Petitioner   :             In person

For the Respondent :           Mr. Rajan Singh,  Advocate 

PRONOUNCED ON:  14th  JULY 2014. 



          Complainant Shyambahadursingh Gangasingh Rajput had filed consumer complaint No.246 of 2009 before Valsad District Consumer DisputesRedressal Forum.  The matter pertains to a mini truck which was purchased by the Complainant in 2006 with loan of Rs.3.05 lacs taken from M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.  Under this agreement, the Complainant was required to repay the loan in 55 monthly instalments of Rs.7700/-.

2.      As per record, the Complainant consistently defaulted on repayment of monthly instalments.  Due to this the OP repossess the vehicle on 1.9.2008.  It was released to him a few days later on the assurance to pay the outstanding instalments.  The case of the Complainant was that the vehicle was forcibly repossessed again on 8.9.2009.  He claimed to have already repaid a sum of Rs.2.69  lacs yet, the vehicle was not returned.

3.      Per contra, the case of the OP/Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. was that the vehicle was repossessed on 7.9.2009 as the outstanding loan amount was Rs.2,64,323/-.  On 17.9.2009 a letter was also sent to him to repay the outstanding amount. 

4.      The District Forum held that the Complainant was himself responsible for his predicament and the complaint was devoid of any merit.  The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that the due process had been followed in repossession of the vehicle.  Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the financier. Consequently, the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum.  

5.      We have heard the Complainant in person and carefully perused the records submitted by him. The main contention of the revision petitioner/ Complainant is that the truck in question had been seized by the Forest department on 26.1.2009 and was released after six months on 27.7.2009.  As there was no income generation from the vehicle in this period, he had defaulted in payment of a few instalments.

6.      Mr. Rajan Singh, Advocate submitted on behalf of the respondent/OP that the Complainant had paid 26 EMIs before his vehicle was seized by the Forest department. After this seizure, the monthly instalments stopped coming. At the time of repossession of this vehicle on 9.9.2009 balance of Rs.2,22,200/- had remained outstanding in the loan account.  The vehicle was eventually sold by the financier on 6.9.2011for a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- and the amount was adjusted to his loan account.  We have also perused the relevant documents in this behalf. Apparently, with the receipt of the sale proceeds the entire balance outstanding as on 9.9.2009 stood recovered.

7.      It is clear from the records that the revision petitioner had a period of two years available to him to clear the outstanding instalments of the loan and to reclaim the vehicle from OPs.  But he failed to do so.  In this background, we find no merit in this revision petition.  The same is dismissed and the decision of the fora below confirmed.  No order as to costs.   











Share with your friends:
1   ...   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   ...   66

The database is protected by copyright © 2019
send message

    Main page