APPEAL No.885/2021

Date of Filing :08.11.2021

Date of Disposal :13.12.2021

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:13.12.2021

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH : PRESIDENT

Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.885/2021

Mr Pushparaj

S/o Mr Narayana Poojary

Aged about 29 years

2-24A, ‘Sri Devi Nilaya’

Milipadpu House, Kurnadu Post

Bantwal Taluk-574 153

Appellant

(By Mr Raghavenda S. Advocate)

-Versus-

The Assistant General Manager

Corporation Bank

M G Road Branch

M C C Building Lalbagh

Mangalore-575 003

D.K District

Represented by its Authorised Signatory

Respondent

-:ORDER:-

Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer

Protection Act 2019 by Complainant in Consumer Complaint

No.189/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Mangaluru, aggrieved by the Order dated 09.08.2021

(for short District Commission and parties as arrayed in the case),

APPEAL No.885/2021

2. The facts in brief of the case are that the Complainant had

availed a Loan of Rs.23,52,000/- for purchase of Ashoka Multi Axle

Goods Vehicle bearing RTO Regn No KA-19AA-8295 from OP Bank

vide Account No.CHEHT-140016 with agreed repayment in 84 EMIs

of Rs.41,206/- & hypothecated the said vehicle with OP as Collateral

Security and in view of default in payment of couple of EMIs, OP had

resorted to taking up paper publication in Kannada Daily News

Paper for Public Auction of the vehicle on 25.02.2017and parallel

intimating the Complainant. Thus Complainant wrote letters dated

20.01.2018, 08.05.2018 & 15.06.2018 requesting the OP for One

Time Settlement. It is alleged by the complainant that OP without

notifying the complainant as defaulter and without issuing any

notice classified the said loan account as NPA on 30.03.2017. It is

alleged by the Complainant that he has requested by oral &also by

writing for One Time Settlement, but OP has not considered the

same and auctioned the vehicle, which amounts to deficiency in

service. Hence, he lodged the present Complaint, seeking direction

to OP for payment of the difference of amount of Rs.9,00,000/-

(Actual value minus Bid amount value) and Rs.5 lakhs towards

solarium & Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

3. OP while contenting the case, admitted the sanction of the

Loan of Rs.23,52,000/- to the Complainant for purchase of a brand

new commercial vehicle of Ashok Multi Axel Goods make on

31.12.2014. Further, when the Complainant was a chronic

Defaulter of the loan instalments totalling Rs.20,18,430/- and it was

classified as Non-Performing Asset. Thus, on 04.11.2016 OP seized

the possession of the vehicle and auctioned it on 02.03.2017 for a

sum of Rs.13,30,000/-. OP pleaded that already a Suit filed before

the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru in OA No.1127/2017

for recovery of the out standings against the Complainant is pending

and denied all other allegations of the Complainant and there is no

APPEAL No.885/2021

deficiency in service on the part of OP as the Complainant is not a

Consumer, not availed any service, subject matter is subjudice and

sought Dismissal of the Complaint.

4. The District Commission after enquiring into the matter and

perusal of evidences & records produced before it, deemed it fit to

Dismiss the Complaint.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant.

6. We have gone through the impugned order dated 09.08.2021

passed by DCDRC, Mangaluru and now to examine whether

impugned order call for an interference for the grounds of Appeal?.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that although

Appellant is a consumer, the Commission below failed to perceive the

facts in right perception thereby passed impugned order holding

that complai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document