Back
TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
B.N. Rao Nalla, President, Patil Vithal Rao, Judicial Member
Bhaskar Thondoor - Complainant
Versus
Hinduja Leyland Finance - Opposite Parties
Complaint Case No. CC/193 of 2016
Decided On : 11-12-2017
For the Complainant :Mr. N. Prem Joy, Advocate.
For the Oposite Parties :M/s. P. Srinivas & Associates, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that seizing a vehicle without following legal procedures and contravening natural justice constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Seizure of Vehicle - Section 17(1)(a)(i) - 1986 - [17(1)(a)(i)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically Section 17(1)(a)(i) and its application in the case. The court highlighted the duty of the opposite parties to submit post-dated cheques for encashment towards instalments and the deficiency of service in seizing the vehicle without reason. The court also referenced legal principles from previous judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a vehicle with a loan from the opposite parties. Despite regular payments, the opposite parties seized the vehicle, alleging default in payments. The complainant argued that the opposite parties failed to present post-dated cheques for certain months, leading to the seizure of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties' seizure of the vehicle without presenting post-dated cheques and without issuing any notice to the complainant constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The court held the opposite parties liable to return the vehicle, remove the complainant's name from CIBIL, pay compensation, and adjust the amounts against the loan account.
Issues: The issues involved whether there was a deficiency in service in seizing the vehicle and the relief to be granted to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite parties' actions amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, citing previous judgments and legal principles. It emphasized the duty to follow legal procedures for repossessing a vehicle and the contravention of natural justice in the seizure without notice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint, directing the opposite parties to return the vehicle, remove the complainant's name from CIBIL, pay compensation, and adjust the amounts against the loan account, while refraining from imposing any penalty or penal interest.
ORDER :
B.N. Rao Nalla, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant to direct the opposite parties to remove the name of the complainant from CIBIL; to handover the vehicle; to pay compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 and to pay costs of Rs. 28,000.
2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant had purchased Honda Activa Electric bearing Registration No. TS02EF7857 by Engine No. 67768 and chassis No. 67625. For the said purchase complainant had obtained loan of Rs. 45,500 from opposite parties. As per the Hire Purchase Agreement complainant was to repay said loan into 23 equal EMI of Rs. 2,398. While entering into agreement the complainant have opted the mode of payment by way of ECS and submitted 23 post-dated cheques of Rs. 2,398 for every month. The opposite party No. 1 has to deposit the cheques on 5th of every month towards EMI.
3. As the matter stood thus, the opposite party No. 1 in the months of January 2015, January 2016 and February 2016, the complainant received calls from the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant is at default for the said months for that the complainant informed them that he had already submitted the post-dated cheques to the opposite party No. 1 and that he had sufficient balance in his bank account and requested them to present the cheques for the said months. The opposite party No. 1 presented the cheques which were honoured and amounts were paid.
4. Though the complainant was regular in paying the instalments but all of sudden on 30.5.2016 when he was out of town two persons forcibly entered into his flat and seized his vehicle. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to return the vehicle but they informed that he was a defaulter and hence they seized the vehicle. When the complainant enquired with the banker they informed that no cheques were dishonoured in his account for the said months. Lastly on 31.5.2016 approached the opposite parties requesting to return the vehicle but they bluntly refused to return the same. Even though they seized the vehicle the oppositeparty No. 1 has presented the cheques for the months of June and July 2016 and the same were honoured. It is the duty of the opposite parties when the complainant submitted 23 post-dated cheques to submit to the banker for encashment but the opposite parties failed to do the same and seized the vehicle with reason that the complainant was a defaulter. The opposite parties showed the overdue amount as Rs. 8,987 to be paid by the complainant without clarifying about the post-dated cheques. The opposite parties committed deficiency of service in not submitting the post-dated cheques for encashment towards instalments and seizing the vehicle without any reason. Hence, the complaint with the prayers as stated in paragraph No. 1 supra.
5. As the opposite parties did not file the written version within the mandatory period of 45 days this Commission forfeited the right of the opposite parties for filing the written version.
6. The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A8 marked. On behalf of the opposite parties, the Legal Manager filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.B1 to B3 marked.
7. No representation for complainant and hence his presence is dispensed with. S. Pavan Kumar, Executive of the opposite party No. 1 present. He also represents opposite party No. 2. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.
8. In the evidence affidavit of the opposite parties it is stated that the complaint is misconceived and the same is devoid of cause of action and lacks merits as such the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further stated that the opposite party company is a registered company and it is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is licensed to carry on the business as a Non Banking Finance Company. The subject vehicle availed by the complainant under the finance facility from the
