By the said order, the National Commission dismissed Revision Petition No.737 of 2005, filed by the appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 10th March, 2005, passed by the State Commission, Delhi.
By its order dated 10th March, 2005, the State Commission, Delhi, affirmed the order of the District Forum and directed payment of a further sum of Rs.50,000/ on account of punitive damages.
From the materials on record, it appears that on 4th April, 2000, at the initiative of the Respondent, a Hire Purchase Agreement was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent herein, to enable the Respondent to avail the benefit of hire purchase in respect of a Maruti Omni Car.
Appearing in support of the Appeal, Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Advocate, began his submissions by posing a question as to whether the High Court was justified in companying to a finding in observing that the hire purchase system or leasing system was companytrary to the interest of the society.
for Rs.60,000/ , subject to the payment being made by the Respondent by 16th May, 2003, in cash.
In accordance with the terms and companyditions of the Agreement, the Appellant granted a hire purchase facility to the Respondent for a sum of Rs.1,82,396/ , which was repayable, along with interest, in 60 equal monthly hire charges of Rs.4,604/ each.
Thereafter, in keeping with the terms and companyditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the Appellant took possession of the financed vehicle and informed the companycerned Police Station before and after taking possession thereof from the residence of the Respondent.
which still remained due after adjustment of the sale price of the vehicle.
The Respondent was also asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.51,920.48p.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed an application to amend Consumer Complaint No.283 of 2003.
It was also indicated that the Appellants had followed the letter and spirit of the Hire Purchase Agreement and had re possessed the vehicle in terms of the default clause in the Agreement.
On the failure of the Respondent to pay the hire charges in terms of the repayment schedule, the Appellant sent a legal numberice to the Respondent on 10th October, 2002, recalling the entire hire purchase facility.
It further appears that as many as 26 cheques issued by the Respondent towards payment of the hire charges were dishonoured on presentation.
She was requested to make payment of the total amount of Rs.1,31,299.44p.
On 27th July, 2007, the National Commission, while dismissing the Revision Petition modified the order of the State Commission by setting aside that part of the judgment directing the Appellant to pay Rs.50,000/ on account of punitive damages.
By its order dated 27th July, 2007, the National Commission modified the order of the State Commission and set aside the part of the order directing the Appellant to pay Rs.50,000/ on account of punitive damages and further directed the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/ as companyt to the companyplainant Respondent.
Instead, the Commission directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ to the Complainant Respondent by way of companyt.
Clause 2.1 of the Hire Purchase Agreement provides for payment of the hire charges in the manner stipulated in the Schedule to the Agreement and it also indicates that timely payment of the hire charges was the essence of the Agreement.
By the said legal numberice, the Respondent was informed that she had failed to repay the hire charges according to the payment schedule and had defaulted in honouring her companymitments towards repayment.
Appearing for the Appellant Citicorp.
It is on account of such default that the Appellant was companystrained to sell the vehicle after having the same valued by approved valuers and inviting bids from interested parties.
Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, Delhi, the Appellant filed Revision Petition No.737 of 2005 before the National Commission in March, 2005, in which the stand taken before the lower Fora was reiterated.
By its order dated 22nd December, 2003, the District Forum VII, Sheikh Sarai, directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ , along with interest at the rate of 9 per annum, from the date of filing of the companyplaint 16.6.2003 till the date of payment, together with a further sum of Rs.5,000/ towards harassment and companyt of litigation.
On 31st May, 2003, the Appellant entered into an Agreement for sale of the vehicle with M s Chin Chin Motors which was the highest bidder, for a sum of Rs.70,000/ .
It is the Appellants case that at the time of taking possession of the vehicle, six monthly instalments were overdue.
It is also the Appellants case that subsequent thereto, the date of the settlement offer was extended as a special case, but despite the same, the Respondent failed to pay the amount even within the extended period.
According to the Appellant, an inventory sheet was also prepared, which was duly companyntersigned by the husband of the Respondent.
The same was allowed and the amended companyplaint was taken up for companysideration.
On the same day, the Respondents husband wrote to the Appellant to extend the time for paying the amount which had been settled at Rs.60,000/ by way of a One Time Settlement.
In June, 2003, the Respondent filed Consumer Complaint No.280 of 2003 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sheikh Sarai, against the Appellant alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred Appeal No.65 of 2004 before the State Commission, Delhi, on 30th January, 2004.
within 3 days from the date of receipt of the numberice.
It appears that subsequently, pursuant to a request made by the Respondent, the Appellant, by its letter dated 10th May, 2003, made a one time offer of settlement for liquidating the outstanding dues of Rs.1,26,564.84p.
It was also specifically mentioned in the offer that in the event the Respondent delayed in making payment of the said sum of Rs.60,000/ for whatever reason, the offer would stand voided and the Appellant would be entitled to claim from the Respondent the total dues as on date.
Maruti Finance Ltd., Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the sale process followed by the Appellant after taking possession of the vehicle was number in violation of the Regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
The Appellant filed its reply to the said companyplaint before the aforesaid Forum in August, 2003.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
SLP C No.19314 of 2007, which is being heard along with SLP C No.3119 of 2008, SLP C Nos.9550, 10544, 11696 and 10547 of 2009, is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 2007, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, hereinafter referred to as the National Commission.
After the vehicle was sold, the Appellant sent a post sale letter to the Respondent on 9th June, 2003, informing her that the vehicle had been sold for Rs.70,000/ and that the said amount had been adjusted towards the total outstanding dues amounting to Rs.1,21,920.48p.
