3 sc/

COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.c.

SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA.

PRESIDENT)

These Appeals are filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1996 (in short Cp Act) by Appeilants challenging the order dated:23.09.2011 passed in CC/206/20t0 on the file of Chamarajanagara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the District Commission).

2.

A/3602/20t1 is fited by Opposite parties.l ro

3 (in short Ops) and A/54/2012 is fited by the complainant.

The Rank of the parties shail be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3.

The Brief facts of the case are that:

The Complainant is resident of Chamarajanagara. He has purchased the TATA 207 Ex (in short vehicle)

bearing reg.no.KA10-2399 from prerana pvt., Motors Ltd., for Rs.4,53,000/- on 25.07.2006. To arrange such amount, himself arranged Rs.73,000/- and availed loan of Rs.3,80,000/- from Ops by hypothecating the said vehicle on 01.07.2006. Loan of Rs.3,g0,000/-

carries interest at7.99o/o p.a, which has to be repaid in 4g EMIs.

First EMI begins from July 2006. He paid EMIs up to April 2007 and did not pay EMIs for the month of May and lune 2007. When he becomes defaulter, Op has seized the vehicle on 09.06.2007 and taken to its custody. The Complainant has approached Ops for release of the vehicle by taking EMIs. But they insisted to pay Rs.2,10,000/-. Accordingly, he paid Rs.60,000/-

on

10.02.2008 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 19.03.2008, but the vehicle was not released. Later he came to know that, OP has taken Fresh Registration Certificate (in short FRC)

from RTO and sold the vehicle in auction to the party

3.d on 06.02.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- without notice to the Complainant or to the public. Aggrieved by the same, pleading unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the Complainant approached District Commission.

4.

Before the District Commission, Ops have filed their version and contested the complaint. They admitted

5 sc/

to have sanctioned the loan of Rs.3,g0,000/_ to the Complainant on the basis of hypothecation agreement dtd.01.07.2006.

They contended that, the vehicle was purchased for the purpose of commercial use.

The Complainant is not a consumer. The complaint is not maintainable as there is arbitration in clause the agreement. The District Commission do not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. They further contended that, loan sanctioned was Rs.3,g0,000/_

which required to repay along with interest at

7.99o/o p.a.

The total amount repayable as per agreement was Rs.5,21,448l-.

Inspite of issuing several notices in the year 2006 & 2007, he did not repay the loan.

For this reason, vehicle was seized and the surveyor has the assessed market value at Rs.1,35,000/_

and thereafter quotation was called from intended purchasers it and was sold to highest bidder Sri.N.puttaswamy for Rs.1,49,000/-

after following due process of law.

Sale proceeds deposited to the loan. After such appropriation, the Complainant is still due in a sum of Rs.6,36,g 66/_. tt is also contended that, the Complainant has forged the receipt for having paid Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-

in the year 2008. In this regard, a complaint was filed in PCR.35/2011 for the offence committed Us.l92, 406, 420, 463 & 468 of IPC before Prl.Civit Judge (Jr.Dvn)

&

JMFC. Hence sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5.

Before the District Commission, both parties have lead their evidence. The District Commission after hearing both parties, held that arbitration clause is not it to applicable and has jurisdiction deal with the complaint. Accordingly recorded its findings that, without notice to the Complainant, vehicle was sold is not just and proper. The vehicle could have been sold in the year 2007 itself. Had it sold as such, it would have fetched more money than the value it was sold for in the year 2010. Thereby holding deficiency in service on the part of OPs, allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.1 lakh with interest at p.a.

60/o and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the