Order Arun Kumar Goel, President (Oral) - Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are, that respondent got Tata 207 vehicle bearing registration .No. HP-66-0399 financed from the appellant. He claims to have deposited Rs. 70,000 as margin money and the balance amount was financed by the appellant. Stand of the appellant in this behalf is, that finance provided by it was in the sum of Rs. 2.90 lacs, and Rs. 70,000/- was deposited by the respondent as margin money. This amount was payable in 47 equated monthly installments commencing from 1.10.2003. 2. Respondent admits that he was in default of the payment of installments due on 1.10.2003, 1.3.2005 and 1.12.2005. Further according to him on 24.3.2006 when the vehicle was parked at Manikaran Chowk at Bhunter, in the morning at about 8:00 AM, 5-6 men of the appellant came and forcibly took possession by asking the driver to get down. His further case is that at this juncture he offered Rs. 16,000/- in cash, but these 5-6 persons did not accept this amount as according to them cash transaction was not permissible. Respondent claims to have made attempt by approaching the appellant to return the vehicle, but without any result. 3. In this background he filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of t he appellant as also its having indulged into unfair trade practice. He thus claimed in his complaint that appellant may be directed to return the vehicle and also to pay Rs. 10,.000/ - as compensation. When put to notice by the District Forum below, appellant admitted that it had provided financial assistance to the respondent for the purchase of vehicle in question and the amount was repayable in the manner as detailed hereinabove. Further version of the appellant was that because of inability to pay the installments due, respondent himself surrendered the vehicle to it on 23.4.2006, therefore allegation of forcible repossession was denied. With a view to support its case reliance was placed on 2 decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Charanjeet Chadha Vs. Sureet Mehra, 2001 (VI) SLT 312 and the Manager St. Mary's Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd., Vs. N A Jose, 2006 J. T. (2) SC 344. With a view to support its case reliance was placed on 2 decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Charanjeet Chadha Vs. Sureet Mehra, 2001 (VI) SLT 312 and the Manager St. Mary's Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd., Vs. N A Jose, 2006 J. T. (2) SC 344. Further case of the appellant before District Forum as well as in this appeal is, that the respondent having failed to pay the installments due as detailed in the proceeding paras had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle. After taking over the vehicle on 23.4.2006, notice terminating the agreement whereunder vehicle was financed by the appellant was issued to the respondent. Its copy is Annexure R-2. While terminating the agreement in question demand of Rs. 1,71,903/- was raised against the respondent. 4. District Forum below after coming to the conclusion, that this is a case of forcible repossession of the vehicle by the appellant negatived plea to the contrary that it was voluntarily surrendered by the respondent. It further came 248 2009(Supp1.) Cur.L.J.(H.P.) to the 'conclusion as a question of fact, that against the total cost of the vehicle Rs. 3.53 lacs out of which appellant paid Rs. 70,000/- as margin money, a sum of Rs. 2.86 lacs had been paid by him against receipts. Thus only Rs. 67,000/- was due and outstanding payable by the respondent. In this background complaint was allowed and appellant was directed to pay Rs. 3 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till payment alongwith costs of Rs. 2000/-. Hence this appeal. 5. In the aforesaid background Mr. Verma learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that since dispute between the parties primarily relates to settlement of accounts, therefore the District Forum below had no jurisdiction to have entertained the complaint and it fell into error while passing the impugned order. Further according to him, relief granted was never prayed for in the complaint, as such on this ground also he submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Alternatively and without in any manner admitting the claim of the respondent, Mr. Verma submitted that the compensation awarded is on higher side, therefore this is an additional ground to allow this appeal. All these pleas have been seriously contested by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. Alternatively and without in any manner admitting the claim of the respondent, Mr. Verma submitted that the compensation awarded is on higher side, therefore this is an additional ground to allow this appeal. All these pleas have been seriously contested by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. Per him the impugned order suffers from no infirmity which may justify interference with the impugned order. 6. Before dealing with the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties, it may be worthwhile to notice here, that as per Annexure R-1 statement of account relied upon by the appellant against the financed sum of Rs. 2.90 lacs, the appellant had paid installments to the extent of Rs. 2,44,838/ -. This is the document of the appellant. In addition to this amount, admittedly margin money of Rs. 70,000- had been paid by the respondent, this shows that a total sum of Rs. 3,14,831/- had been paid partly towards the financed amount by the appellant and rest as margin money at the time of purchase of the vehicle. 7. In this background we are of the view that for non payment of Rs. 45,169/-, besides the interest, appellant would not voluntarily surrender the vehicle as was forcefully urged by Mr. Verma learned counsel for the appellant. Here we may also clarify that the facts are established from the documents produced by the appellant itself. That being the position, submission of Mr. Verma that the District Forum below having no jurisdiction to have adjudicated upon the complaint is without merit and is hereby rejected as there is no dispute of accounts between the parties. 8. Now coming to the second submission of Mr. Verma learned counsel for the appellant, that what relief has been granted that was never prayed for. This plea is being noted simply to be rejected. Reason being that in a given case relief can always be moulded if it is made out from the circumstances of the case. 9. We may also point out here that so long as we are governed by rule of law in civil society, and the writ of Constitution of India runs throughout the length and breadth of the country, it has to be followed by all concerned. 9. We may also point out here that so long as we are governed by rule of law in civil society, and the writ of Constitution of India runs throughout the length and breadth of the country, it has to be followed by all concerned. In our opinion this is purely a case of loan transaction between the parties therefore, without having recourse to law appellant was not at all justified either in the law or by becoming law unto itself by use of muscle power. How the banks -have to act came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur & Ors. AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1349, and it was held that for recovery of bank loan or seizure of vehicles could only be done through legal means, the banks cannot employ goondas to take possession by force. 10. Similarly in the case of Citicrop Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi, III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC), National Commission came heavily/so far forcible seizure of vehicle and practice of hiring musclemen as recovery agents and deprecated the same. It was further observed by the National Commission, that recovery of loans and seizure of vehicle is only permitted through law and banks cannot employ goondas to take possession of the vehicle despite the fact that procedure of law is slow, but that was no excuse for use Of force for repossessing the vehicle. It was further held by the National Commission, that permitting the hypothecated (like appellant in the present appeal) to physically repossess the hypothecated goods against wishes of hypothecator (like the respondent) enables hypothecated to take law in his own hands and deprives hypothecator of his defence by depriving him use of goods. 11. We specifically asked learned counsel for the appellant as to whether before taking over of the vehicle any notice was issued and or demand was created against him to clear defaulted installments or they would take over the vehicle on 23.4.2006, nothing could be pointed out from record, save and except Annexure R-2. Mr. Verma however submitted that his client as per practice always issued notice(s) before taking over the vehicle and by calling upon the loanee to clear the default. This is a statement in the air not supported from the record, as such rejected. 12. Mr. Verma however submitted that his client as per practice always issued notice(s) before taking over the vehicle and by calling upon the loanee to clear the default. This is a statement in the air not supported from the record, as such rejected. 12. We further asked him that before putting the vehicle to sale whether it was got evaluated he could not again point out anything from the record. Again after effecting sale of the forcibly taken over vehicle which is subject matter of this appeal, whether respondent was informed of the offer received by the appellant and at the same time having been called upon him to bring a better buyer offering higher price, with money he could not point out anything from the complaint file in this behalf. So much so there is nothing on record to suggest as to what was the price at which the vehicle in question was sold by the appellant. This shows that as a high contracting party how the appellant dealt with the taken over vehicle. We may hasten to add here that in a given' case in the event of default being there on the part of the loanee nothing prevents the financier to initiate action in accordance with law, but in a transparent manner. In case the action had been taken by the appellant from in such a manner, the respondent could not make any grievance. Nothing could be pointed out from the entire complaint file on behalf of the appellant. Though Mr. Verma persisted with vehemence that his clients completed all codal formalities before taking over the vehicle and selling the same, this plea is again noted simply to be rejected. 13. So far the alternative plea of the appellant is concerned, it is also without substance and thus merits rejection. Reason being that for want of transparency in the sale of vehicle as noted in the preceding paras, as also in the absence of the price at which it was sold, we are of the view that relief granted by the District Forum below is legal and calls for no interference. Even during hearing of this appeal, amount for which taken over vehicle was sold could not be pointed on behalf of the bank. 14. No other point is urged. Even during hearing of this appeal, amount for which taken over vehicle was sold could not be pointed on behalf of the bank. 14. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs at Rs. 4,000/-. All interim orders passed. from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules. M.R.B.