BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT VIJAYAWADA

F.A.No. 495 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.136 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA

Between

1.  Indusind Bank Ltd.,
rep. by its Authorised Signatory
40-1-44, 2^nd M.G.Road, Labbipeta, Vijayawada-010

2.  Indusind Bank Ltd.,
rep. by its Authorised Signatory
Old NO.115, 115, New No.34,
G.M.Chetty Road, T.Nagar,
Chennaia-017

3.  Indusind Bank Ltd.,
rep. by its Authorised Signatory
Regd. Off: NO.2401, General
Timmaiah Road, Contonement
Pune-001

Appellants/opposite parties

1.  T.Rajasekhar S/o Satyanarayana Vijayawada, Krishna District-010

                                                       2.  M/s Cholamandala MS General rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Branch Officer, 40-1-140, 1^st Vijayawada-010.
(R2 is not necessary party to the present appeal)
                                               

Counsel for the Appellant             

Counsel for the Respondent                                               

 QUORUM:

               1.            `19,03,494/- and to furnish statement of account of the sale process and to furnish auction particulars.  

2.     `32 lakh    `3 lakh and the remaining amount of`29 lakh was borrowed from the first appellant under loan agreement dated 5.8.2008.   `1,00,006/- for 36 months ending on 7.7.2011.

3.                  

4.      `32 lakh and the respondent no.1 had borne margin money of`3 lakh whereas the appellants advanced loan of`29 lakh under loan agreement dated 5.8.2008. `1,05,980/- for 20 months and`1,04,980/- for the remaining period.  Additional interest charges accrued in the loan account and his account was declared as NPA.   

5.      `32 lakh.   `18,38,379/- was due from  `6,47,622/-.  `1,25,000/- to transport the vehicle on 28.10.2009 in Barwani, Madhya Pradesh. 

6.            

7.    

8.        9.     

10.           

i)            Whether the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

ii)          Whether the appellants rendered deficient service in the matter of repossession and sale of the excavator?

iii)         To what relief?

11.               

12.   

13.           The order or decree passed by the court or tribunal is not treated on the same footing where it passed without territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction and the jurisdiction as to the subject matter as well. The order passed without the jurisdiction of the subject matter is no order in the eye of law as the very power required to pass the order or decree is lacking in the court or tribunal.

14.           

15.            

16.              

17.             

18.     

 19.            

కె.ఎం.కె*