Back
RAVISHANKAR, SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Beema Rao – Respondent
ORDER
Ravishankar, Judicial Member.—The Opposite Parties/Appellants in complaint No.2930/2010 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the III Addl. Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru which directed these appellants to pay an amount of Rs.2,28,500/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service and submits that the complainant had obtained a financial assistance of Rs.3.00 lakhs for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle, he was not paid the EMIs regularly for which they repossessed the vehicle and subsequently sold. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency of service and sought for return of the vehicle or an alternative for payment of the balance amount, amounting to Rs.2,28,500/-.
2. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay the above said amount. In fact these appellants had seized the vehicle for non-payment of the EMIs regularly. In this regard, they have issued demand notice and also announced paper publication for sale of vehicle. Even in spite of that the complainant not came forward to regularize the loan amount. Having
Deficiency in Service – Adjustment of loan amount towards EMI by auction sale of vehicle does not amount to deficiency in service.
Repossession of Vehicle – Default in payment of EMIs – No deficiency in service.
Revisional Jurisdiction – In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by Forum & SC, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
