Consumer protection principles necessitate due diligence in repossession and fair valuation to avoid service deficiencies.

O R D E R

BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated 20-12- 2014 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Chitradurga in CC.No.37/2014 and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainants intended to purchase a tractor for the development of the agriculture, hence they approached to the Mahindra and Mahindra Tractor at Chitradurga which worth of Rs.6,75,000/-. The dealers have made arrangement for loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the Opposite Party and the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- to the tractor dealer and purchased the said tractor. The Opposite Party took the tractor as a security of the loan by hypothecating the same. As per the terms and conditions of the repayment of the loan, the complainants have to pay Rs.86,000/- per installment per half yearly, in the agreement to default to pay the same the due amount will pay attracted penal interest @ 36% per annum per EMI for overdue. The complainant had paid first installments of Rs.86,000/- in time through their said field officer. The second installment was due on 5.10.2013 and the complainants could not pay the same in time due to financial problems. Surprisingly on 8.1.2014 the Opposite Party has sent a notice to the respondents to pay the second installment, after receiving the notice, the complainants went to the office of the Opposite Party to pay the due installments of Rs.86,000/- with interest, but the Manager of the Opposite Party refused to receive the said amount saying that there was delay and he could not take installments amount. The office of the Opposite Party came to the house of the complainants on 11.1.2014 and took the possession of the vehicle without following the procedure provided under the law. On 20.1.2014 the Opposite Party sent a notice to the complainants stating that they have to pay a sum of Rs.4,01,748/- within seven days which contains principle amount interest and other charges. The complainants went to the office of the Opposite Party to seek clarification of the same. However, the Opposite Party ignored to clarify. Hence the complainants issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party and requested to receive the balance due installments and deliver the tractor to the complainants, but the Opposite Party did not oblige the notice and sent reply stating that they have already sold the tractor to the third person. Hence, the complaint.

3. After service of notice of the District Commission, the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that the loan amount has to be paid in five installments commencing from 5.4.2013 to 5.4.2015. The complainant has paid one half installment of Rs.86,000/- only and they are chronic defaulters. Further contended that despite several demands, the complainants failed to pay the outstanding amount so the Opposite Party issued repossession notice dated 8.1.2014 and 18.1.2014, took possession of the tractor and on 20.1.2014 the Opposite Party issued post repossession notice demanding to pay the amount within seven days with default clause of disposing of the vehicle. Further contended that the complainants did not come forward to pay the due amount to get the vehicle be released. Hence the Opposite Party valued the vehicle out of tendered and sold the same for Rs.3,60,000/- and adjusted to the loan amount of the complainants. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on their part and prays