1 s c / cBL / 29 / A/ L t84 / 20 17 Date of fitang: 18.05,2017 Date of Disposal: 06.01.2026 E DATED: O6th DAY OF JANURARY 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.c. SHMSHANKARE GoWDA _ PRESIDENT and MTs. DIVYASHREE M - LADY MET{BER sc ^t cBt ^t 29 ^t A I LL84 t 2cj,7 BETWEEN:

1. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd., Triprant Road, Basavakalyan -595327.

2. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd., 5-4, 2nd floor, Asian Complex, Head post Office, Super Market, Kalburgi.

Both are rep. by its pOA Sri.T,J,Ravi ........ Appellant/s (By Sri.V.S.Zalki, Advocate)

AND:

Mohd. Azam patel S/o Zahed patel, 44/95/4, Babar Bagh road, Basavakalyan, Bidar District Respondent/s (Served-absent)

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON,BLE MT. JUSTICE T.G. sHIvAsHANKARE GowDA, PRESIDENT)

This Appeal is filed U/s.fS of Consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short Cp Act) by Appeltants challenging the order dated:25.02.2077 passed in CC/22/2014 on the file of Bidar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the District Commission).

2.

The Appeilants.l & 2 were the Opposite parties.l & 2 (in short Ops.1 & 2) and Respondent was the Complainant before the District Commission. Op.3 is not made party in this appeal. The Rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3.

The Brief facts of the case are that:

The Complainant is owner of the truck bearing reg.no.l(A_

56/t072, it was purchased from Op.3/dealer under hypothecation loan granted by Ops.1 & 2/financiers.

Due to inherent manufacturing defect in the engine, the vehicle could not run optimally, thereby he could not earn money to discharge the loan. There was high consumption of diesel, but given less mileage. It was informed to Op.3, but they failed to rectifo the defects in the vehicle. On the other hand, Ops.1 & 2 without intimation unrawfu[y seized the vehicre. Due to which, he sustained heavy monitory loss and suffered mentally and physically.

He approached the District Commission seeking direction against Ops not to auction or sell the vehicle till disposal of the case and to pay compensation of Rs.9,60,000/-.

4.

Before the District Commission, inspite of service of notice, Ops.1 to 3 remained exparte.

5. Before the District Commission, the Complainant has filed affidavit evidence and marked

19 documents as Ex-p1 to p19. The District Commission after hearing Learned Counsel for Complainant, allowed the complaint in part and directed Ops.1 & 2 not to charge or collect any amount from the Complainant towards default of payment of EMIs and dismissed the complaint against Op.3. Aggrieved by the same, Ops.1 &

2 have preferred this appeal.

6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for Appellants/Ops.1 & 2.

The Complainant being the Respondent - he remained absent inspite of service of notice.

7. Now the point that arise for consideration is:

Whether the order of the District Commission is perverse/illegat, does calt for interference ?

8. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for oPs'1 & 2 that, there was a shifting of the office and the notice said to have been sent was not come to their knowledge.

Because of the same, they could not appear and contest the case. It was also brought to the notice of this Commission that, the relief granted by the District Commission is different from the prayer sought in the complaint.

Hence prays for remand of the matter to the District Commission with opportunity to Ops.1 & 2 to contest the case.

9.

We gave our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by Learned counser for ops.1 & 2 and perused the materials on record.

10.

There is no dispute that the Complainant is the owner of the truck bearing reg.no.KA-56/LOl2.It was purchased from Op.3 under hypothecation loan granted by OPs.1 & 2. To discharge the said loan, he is required to pay EMIs regularly.

11. It is the contention of the Complainant that, the vehicle has inherent manufacturing defect due to which mileage was reduced and the Complainant could not able to earn money to discharge the loan. Inspite