IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 692 of 2023 [Against the order passed in C.C. No.121 of 2022 dated 27.04.2023 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Vellore]

Friday, the 31^st day of January 2025

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House Senapari Bapet Marg Lower Panel (West)

Mumbai -400 013.

2. The Branch Manager HDFC Bank, 22, 1st Floor, 7th East Cross Street Gandhi Nagar, Vellore. .. Appellants/

Opposite parties - Vs -

Mohamed Shazeeb Mongot S/o. Abdul Haseeb

3, Sheik Ahmed Street Melvisharam, Walaja Taluk Ranipet District. .. Respondent/

Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/

Opposite Parties : M/s. Deepa Hari Govind The Respondent/Complainant : Party-in-person This appeal came up for final hearing on 03.07.2024 and, on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and the respondent in person and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed as against the order dated

27.04.2023, passed in C.C. No.121 of 2022, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent, in part.

2. The appellants are the Opposite Parties and the respondent is the complainant, before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the District Commission.

3. In brief, the case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Commission, is as follows :- The complainant had purchased a HYUNDAI VENUE car bearing No.TN 73 AC 4759 on 02.01.2020. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as his contribution and Rs.7,73,292/- by availing financial assistance from the 2^nd opposite party. Against the said loan, the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.16,052/- per month as EMI for a period of 60 months. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,88,286/- in 18 instalments regularly, to the 2^nd opposite party. Whileso, due to COVID-19 the complainant committed default in paying the monthly instalments. Since he could not pay the EMIs, he returned the vehicle on his own accord to the 2^nd opposite party, on 24.03.2022. While surrendering the car, the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that if he pays 5 months instalment amount within 20 days from the date of surrender, the 2^nd opposite party will return the said car to the complainant. Hence, on 13.04.2022 the complainant went with a sum of Rs.80,000/- to pay 5 instalment amounts, but, the 2^nd opposite party refused to receive the said amount and informed the complainant that only if the entire instalment amount is paid, he would return the car. The complainant was aggrieved by the act of the 2^nd opposite party and returned to his house in vain. Before expiry of the grace period of 20 days given to the complainant to clear the 5 months instalment dues, the 2^nd opposite party had issued a notice dated 24.03.2022 calling upon the complainant to clear the entire amount due on or before 07.04.2022. While the matter stood thus, another notice dated 26.04.2022 was issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant, stating that the Hyundai Venue Car of the complainant bearing Registration No.TN 73 AC 4759 has been sold for a sum of Rs.7,61,000/- and after deducting a sum of Rs.7,41,933.08 being the balance amount payable by the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party asked the complainant to receive the balance amount of Rs.19,066.92. However, the complainant did not receive the said amount. Infact, the notice issued by the opposite parties does not disclose the total amount repaid by the complainant under the said loan and the same has been wantonly and wilfully suppressed by the 2^nd opposite party in order to grab the money of the complainant. Further, in the said notice, the 2^nd opposite party had claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards possession charges, which is highly illegal and unlawful, since th