SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3275

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC BANK LIMITED Through its AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ANNA FEBRONIA RAYMOND – Appellant
Versus
SRI. NAGESH K.M S/o. mahadevappa.k – Respondent
SC/29/FA/721/2025



Petitioner Advocates:B.C.AVINASH ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

1 sc/29/FAl72L/2025

Date of filing: 30.06.2025 Date of Disposal: 27.03.2026

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU

(PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 27th DAY OF MARCH 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA - PRESIDENT

and HON'BLE Mrs. DMASHREE M - LADY MEMBER

sct29tFAl72Lt2025 BETWEEN:

1. I,I/S HDFC BANK LIMITED, 1ST FLOoR, MYTHRI ARCADE,

KANTHARA]EURS ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM,

MYSORE-571313.

REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MS.ANNA FEBRNIA RAYMOND.

2. MIS HDFC BANK LIMITED, CHAMARA]ANAGAR BRANCH,

OPP TO JSS WOMEN COLLEGE, CHAMARA]ANAGAR.57 1 3 1 3.

REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MS.ANNA FEBRONIA RAYMOND. APPELLANT/S

( BY SRI. B.C.AVTNASH, ADV.)

AND:

SRI.NAGESH K.M., S/O MAHADEVAPPA K,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, KADAHALLI VILI-AGE,

MADAURA POST, CHAMARA] NAGAR-57 1 3 1 1 3. RESPONDENTS/S

(BY SRI.P.MAHESHA, ADV.)

KSCDRC (PB)

##PAGE2##

2 sc/2s/FN72t/202s

ORAL

ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This Appeal is fited UlS 4t of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short Cp Act) by the appellants

chailenging the order dated t7.04,2025 passed in CC/02/2024 on the file of District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Chamarajanagara (in short the District Commission).

2.

The Appellants were Opposite party Nos.1 and

2 (in short Op Nos.1 and 2) and Respondent was

complainant before the District Commission. 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;

complainant has purchased Renalt Kiger car bearing registration No.KA-10-M-6g21 by borrowing a loan of Rs.5,57,998/- from the Ops by paying down payment of Rs.3,42,0OO/-. The Loan carries 60 EMIs each of

Rs.Ll,22L/- and the first EMI starts from

26.LO.202L and the final EMI has to close by Z6.LO.ZO26. In

the month of June to July 2022, complainant was admitted

KSCDRC (PB)

##PAGE3##

3 sc/2e/FA/727/202s

to Apollo Hospital due to kidney problems and he has spent huge money towards treatment and for

this reason he could not pay the EMIs regularly. The

Ops without giving any notice, on

73.06.2023 have repossessed the vehicle. The complainant

has approached the Ops that he will repay the money and asked for release of the vehicle which was not obliged by

the OPs. The vehicle is of 2021 model had run only

21,368 kms and the act of the Ops in putting the car into the public auction without prior notice, repossession of

the car when only 06 EMIs were due is illegal and alleging deficiency of service, the complaint is

filed before the District Commission.

4.

Before the District Commission, Ops have opposed the complaint by filing version denying the allegations made in the complaint and the alleged that there is no deficiency of service. They have admitted

the loan lent to the complainant and the complainant is required to pay the money in 60 EMIs of Rs.LL,22L/_

each and the car was hypothecated by the Ops.

Since the complainant has not repaid the EMIs and the debt outstanding was Rs.5,39,654.46/- car was repossessed

KSCDRC (PB)

##PAGE4##

4 scl29/FN72t/202s on 28.06.2023.

The Car was to sotd one Sri.G.K.Rajaprasad for a sum of Rs.4,17,000/_ and it

was derivered to his possession on 24.07.2023.

Even after adjusting the same, the comprainant is due of

Rs.7,29,849/-

and notice was sent to him to repay the said amount. Instead of paying the said amount, he has

filed the present complaint and they sought for dismissal

of the complaint.

5.

Before the District Commission, both the parties have filed their affidavit evidence and also the

documents.

The District Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint in part and directed

to OPs issue No Due Certificate within O1 month otherwise to pay penalty of Rs.50/_ per day.

Aggrieved by the same, Ops have preferred the present

appeal.

6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both the parties for final disposal.

7 Now the points that arises for our consideration is:

Whether Ops

I have committed

deficiency of service?

KSCDRC (PB)

##PAG

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top