A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 222/2008 against C.C 866/2006, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad

Between:

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Lakdikapool Branch

Ashok Complex

Beside Ashoka Hotel

Hyderabad-500 004.

Rep. by its Branch Manager                        ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                 O.Ps.

                                                                    And

B. Srinivas

S/o. Ramulu

Age: 28 years, Business

R/o. Plot  No. 133, Budda Nagar

Peerjaguda, Uppal

Hyderabad.                                                            ***                        Respondent/

                                                                                                 Complainant.      

Counsel for the Appellants:                        M/s. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy

Counsel for the Resp:                                 P.I.P.

QUORUM:

                          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

THIS THE  TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                 Aggrieved by the order of the Dist. Forum in directing  the HDFC bank the appellant to pay the market value of the vehicle with interest @ 9% from the date of seizure till realization together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/- this appeal is preferred.

2)                 It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Scorpio Car bearing No. AP 37AC 2142  in  February, 2005  after borrowing a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/-  from the appellant bank, and hypothecated the same.  Without intimation or notice,  the bank had seized the car alleging that an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was due by him.   He protested for the high handed behaviour, tendered  the  amount but  the  bank refused to  receive  it  nor deliver  the car

in spite of  his repeated requests.   On that he got issued a legal notice directing to furnish full particulars about the loan transaction for which a reply was received  alleging that it had issued recall and resale notice which in fact were never received by him.  However, it did not furnish any particulars of the loan.  Seizure of  the car worth Rs. 6 lakhs in high handed manner  was illegal for which he lost his reputation and prestige.  Therefore  he filed the complaint for delivery of his car with accessories together with compensation and costs.

3)       The appellant  bank resisted the case.   It alleged that it has sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,25,000/- on executing Hypothecation agreement in its favour.  The complainant did not inform about the accessories  that were attached to  the car.   The loan amount had to be paid in 36 equal monthly instalments at Rs. 14,950/-.  When the complainant had committed default in payment of instalments it has informed through phone several times and finally a recall notice which was unanswered by him.  Due to non-compliance of terms and conditions of Hypothecation agreement,  it has seized the vehicle and  issued a pre-sale notice directing payment of outstanding amount and the said notice was remained unanswered.   Since they issued notice terminating the loan agreement, there  was no relationship between them.  In spite of it, they received a telegraphic notice for which they gave reply informing him that the vehicle was seized.   It has given correct reply to the notice.  The allegation that the car was worth Rs. 6 lakhs  is not true.  He has violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement,  and as such it had taken action for the defa