A defaulter cannot claim deficiency in service against the lender as demonstrated in this appeal.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 636/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short “the District Commission”).

2. The complainant had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with respect to the vehicle loan of his vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL 17 G 7929. The District Commission on 12.07.2018 had dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.

3. The case as stated in the complaint is that the complainant had availed a vehicle loan for Rs. 3,15,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifteen Thousand only) from the opposite party as per a loan agreement dated 30.12.2010. The EMI was fixed as Rs. 8,860/- (Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty only) for 48 months. The complainant had paid 36 EMIs and on account of the financial crisis, he defaulted 12 instalments. In the meantime, the opposite party had put forth a settlement formula that they would sell the vehicle after giving due notice to the complainant and adjust the sale proceeds to the amount due from the complainant and to refund the excess amount. Believing the said assurance, the complainant had given consent to the settlement formula and handed over the vehicle to the opposite party. But the opposite party had violated the settlement formula and sold away the vehicle at a throwaway price without giving any presale notice to the complainant. The market value of the vehicle at the time of handing over was Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) as evident from the insurance policy. The amount due to the opposite party at the time of handing over of the vehicle was Rs. 1,06,320/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only). After the sale of the vehicle, the opposite party had sent a demand notice dated 04.05.2015 seeking a further payment of Rs. 44,840/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty only). The act of the opposite party in selling the vehicle at a throwaway price without giving proper sale notice amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

4. The opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version contending that the complainant had purchased the Tempo Traveller by availing a loan from the opposite party. The complainant had defaulted the payment and surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party as the complainant was unable to find out a purchaser as the condition of the vehicle was dilapidated. The vehicle has no market value at all and that is why the complainant had surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party. There was no settlement formula as alleged in the complaint. It was only because of the inability to find out a prospective buyer, he had surrendered the vehicle. The allegation that the opposite party had sold the vehicle at a throwaway price without giving any notice is false. The complainant was issued with a presale notice. The value declared in the insurance policy never reflects the actual market price. At no point of time, the opposite party offered that the vehicle would fetch Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only). The vehicle was sold only for Rs. 66,000/- (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand only) and the said fact was informed to the complainant. There was no prohibition for the complainant to participate in the auction. But he remained absent from the auction and hence he cannot raise any contention against the same. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

5. No oral evidence was let in by both sides.

6. On the side of the complainant Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked. Exhibits B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

7. After considering the contentions and on