Back
GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA
Sunita Devi – Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
Gautam Chourdiya, President.—This appeal is filed against order dated 03.10.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2017/373 whereby thecomplaint was dismissed observing that the complainant/ appellant herself defaulted in repayment of financed amount and consequently lawfully following the procedures the vehicle in question was repossessed by the financier, in which no deficiency in service was committed. Aggrieved the complainant has preferred this appeal.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant / appellant purchased a truck with the help of finance of Rs.25,00,000/- provided by the opposite party / respondent finance company on 10.06.2015, which was to be repaid in EMIs of Rs.61,341/- till 15.01.2020. As per case of the complainant/ appellant she was paying the EMIs regularly and total Rs.13,00,000/- has been deposited by her but even then the vehicle was repossessed on 17.06.2017 by the financier in unauthorized way with key obtaining signature of the driver on a blank paper. Alleging which as deficiency in service complaint was filed.
3. The
Repossession of Vehicle – Default in payment of EMIs – No deficiency in service.
Deficiency in Service – Adjustment of loan amount towards EMI by auction sale of vehicle does not amount to deficiency in service.
Repossession – Merely because the OP-1 Bank had repossessed the vehicle due to repeated defaults of EMIs without giving due notice to the Complainant, the Complainant is not absolved of his liability....
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
