The legal rights of the financier under the hire-purchase agreement and the responsibility of the owner to register the vehicle were central to the judgment.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 4.11.2008 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No. 1390 of 2008 whereby the order of the District Forum was set aside.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant approached the petitioner bank to obtain car loan under a special scheme. The scheme was offered by the O.P. with the following break-up of the car loan on road:

(a) Rs. 2,08,810-Invoice Amount of Maruti 800 (new car)

(b) Rs. 1,87,929 - Finance assistance from the Opposite Party Bank (Actual loan).

(c) Rs. 1,4,43-Finance charges including registration of car, insurance of car, documentation of car and administration charges of the Opposite Party Bank.

(d) 20,881-Investment of the complainant as margin money.

3. On 2.2.2005, the complainant executed an agreement for Rs. 2,91,972. Accordingly, 84 instalments for Rs. 3,476 had been fixed by the Opposite Parties for the repayment. While taking possession of the car, complainant enquired about the insurance and he was informed by O.P. that it will be done within 2 days. In short, possession of the car was taken by complainant without insurance and registration. Although, the complainant commenced repayment of the loan amount, the G.P. failed to get the vehicle registered. Thus, the Complainant requested the O.P. to return the vehicle registration charges but request was not acceded to. Lastly, the complainant requested O.P. to reduce the finance charges on this account, but request was declined. On 27.2.2007, the O.P. repossessed the vehicle on the ground that the complainant had committed default in the payment of instalments. Meanwhile, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 7.3.2007. Even after the reply was sent, the matter was not settled. Finally, the O.P. sold the car and the sale proceeds were adjusted towards the loan account of the complainant.

4. Aggrieved by the actions of the O.Ps., the Complainant approached the District Consumer Forum, Gulbarga (hereinafter called the District Forum) and filed consumer complaint which was dismissed by the District Forum, vide its order dated 30.5.2008.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The Commission vide its order dated 4.11.2008 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. The Opposite Parties were directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the Complainant/ Respondent within two months from the date of order. If the former parties fail to do so, they will be liable to pay interest at 9% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000 from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, the Opposite Parties have preferred the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the loan was taken on 2.2.2005, The Respondent failed to pay instalments for the month of July, August, September, December 2005 and March 2006, etc., therefore the petitioner herein sent a notice dated 3.6.2006 demanding payment of due amount and had clearly stated that the vehicle will be repossessed if the notice is not complied with. Another notice was sent on 30.12.2006. When the respondent did not deposit any money, the vehicle was repossessed on 27.2.2007. The respondent gave legal notice on 7.3.2007 and petitioner replied on 29.3.2007 denying all the allegations. The respondent then filed the consumer complaint on 6.10.2007 before the District Forum, which was rightly dismissed. However, the State Commission has allowed the appeal of the complainant on the ground that the opposite party has not disclosed the amount due when the vehicle was repossessed. It has also observed that the OPs have not dis