NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONHDCF NEW DELHI JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON: 06.04.2026 JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 20.04.2026 REVISION PETITION NO. 970 OF 2022 (Against the Order dated 29.09.2020 in Appeal 238/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Andhra Pradesh at Vijayawada)

With IA/7046/2022, IA/7047/2022 (stay, condonation of delay)

HDFC Bank Ltd. having its Regd. Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai -400013 and Its Regl. Office at 17/126, GVR Enclave, Trunk Road, Nellore - 524001.

......Petitioner Versus Ammineni Niranjan, S/o Jayaram Naidu, R/o D. No. 18-36-S9-1174, Flat No. 102, S.V. Nilayam, Madhura Nagar, Tirupathi. Respondent BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Vasudha Arora, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA. MEMBER

1.gfedcbTahZYeX pWrVeUseTSnRt QrePvOisNiMonL KpJeIHtiGtiFoEnD hCaBsA been filed by the petitioner/OP bank against the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the State Commission wherein the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the District Forum was upheld. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner/OP bank are that respondent/complainant purchased a Toyota Innova car for a sum of Rs.12,89,917/- and got a loan to the tune of Rs.11,06,438/- from them. Loan was to be repaid in 60 equal instalments of Rs.23,920/- each for the period from 05.09.2014 to 05.08.2019. Respondent was very irregular in repayment of his monthly EMIs and out of 17 EMIs, 12 PDCs for EMI had bounced, which led to the overdue amounts in the loan account. Since the respondent did not pay the EMIs on time and there was recurrence of default in payment a Loan Recall Notice dated 07.01.2016 for payment of the whole of the outstanding loan amount within 7 days, pointing out the the failure would lead to re-possession was sent to him but the respondent did not reply to the same. When petitioner tried to take possession of the vehicle after due intimation to the police on 28.01.2016, the respondent did not allow, and with police intervention, instead, parked the vehicle at police station premises. Petitioner had to take possession of the vehicle from the police station after issuing a pre-repossession intimation to the police which was also acknowledged by the concerned police officer. On 29.01.2016, after repossessing the vehicle, petitioner sent a pre-sale notice to the respondent and again called upon the respondent to repay the entire loan amount of Rs. 10,12,825/- within 15 days i.e. on or before 13.02.2016. Respondent did not reply to the Pre-Sale Notice also and instead issue a legal notice dated 19.02.2016 to the petitioner for regularizing his loan account by accepting the defaulted EMIs payments and also to return his vehicle. His request was not accepted because his loan account was already recalled and also because, as per the petitioner, he was a chronic defaulter. In reply dated 22.02.2016 to the notice, he was again given seven days time repay the entire loan amount and that failing which petitioner will proceed to sell the vehicle. The petitioner accordingly sold the vehicle and intimated the same to the petitioner on 31.03.2016 with request to collect a surplus amount of Rs. 19583/- lying with the bank after adjustment of the sale proceeds against loan outstanding. Aggrieved with such action of the Bank, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on account of illegal repossession and illegal sale of the vehicle without following the due process and wrongfully refusing to accept the overdue amount which was offered by the complainant much before sale. Also, the complainant was aggrieved because absolutely no specific intimation or notice of the actual sale/auction, even after illegal re-possession, was given or even the information as to when, and to whom, and