BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

RP NO.38 OF 2017 AGAINST IA NO.102 OF 2017 IN CC NO.63

OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, MAHABUBNAGAR

Between:

India Infoline Finance Ltd.,

124/10, 13^th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo,

C 38 & 39, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051.

Having its branch office at # 5-9-22/B/501,

5^th & 6^th Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza,

Secretariat Road, Hyderabad – 500 004.

Rep. by its authorized signatory,

Mr.Dasaradha Mallepudi.

…Petitioner/Opposite party No.2

And

1)       L.Venkataswamy S/o Krishnaiah,

          Aged about 53 years, Occ: Owner

          of Lorry No.TS-06-UA-7564,

          R/o H.No.9-235, Bijinapally

          Village & Mandal,

          Mahabubnagar district.

…Respondent/Complainant

2)       The Branch Manager,

          India Infoline Finance Ltd.,

          D.No.1-10-147/7, Saif Complex,

          Shah Saheb Gutta, Opp: Pragathi

          Junior College, Mahabubnagar.

          (Respondent No.2/Opposite party No.1

          is not necessary party).

…Respondent/Opposite party No.1

Counsel for the Petitioner        :         Sri T.Jayant Jaisoorya

Counsel for the Respondents   :         Sri R.Venkatakrishna-R1

CORAM :

Hon’ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal   …      President

and

Sri K.Ramesh              …      Member

Friday, the Fourth day of January

Two thousand Nineteen

Oral Order :

***

          This revision petition is filed under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 aggrieved by orders dated 15.11.2017 of the District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar passed in IA No.102/2017 in CC No.63/2017 directing the Petitioner therein to pay an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the Respondents on or before 04.12.2017 and on such payment, directing the Respondents therein to handover the lorry No.TS-06-UA-7564 to the Petitioner. 

2)       Counsel on both sides present.  On behalf of the revision petitioner, statement of account of the borrower is filed.

3)       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the respondent.  The controversy in the revision petition boils down to the fact that as on today, admittedly, the Respondent/Complainant borrower has not paid the monthly EMIs which are approximately quantified at Rs.17,83,827.67 ps. Principal plus interest of Rs.8,81,114/- = Rs.26,64,941/-.

4)       The revision petitioner financier submits that they have no objection for releasing the vehicle so seized in the event of the respondent making payment of the amount due as on today.  The respondent submits that since the vehicle was under the custody of the revision petitioner, he is not in a position to clear the entire amounts.

5)       Having heard the submissions of both sides and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the interest of justice will be met if the respondent is directed to pay half of the amount due i.e., 50% of amount due, as shown above after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited by him before the District Forum pursuant to the impugned order within a period of one month.  As and when this condition is complied with and intimation is given to the revision petitioner/financier, the revision petitioner shall release the vehicle in favour of the Respondent/Complainant.

6)       Needless to say that the remaining 50% of the amount shall be paid to the revision petitioner/financier after the disposal of the consumer complaint before the District Forum.  However, the Respondent/Complainant shall continue to pay the monthly EMIs commencing from March 2019 without fail.  If the said condition is not complied with, the financier is at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.  The RP is accordingly disposed of.

PRESIDENT                         MEMBER

Dated 04.01.2019