Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 1 - 
BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL 
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President 
And 
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member 
And 
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member 
 
Tuesday the 09th day of June, 2009 
C.C.No. 17/08 
 
Between: 
 
Dr.H.Noor Ahmed, 
M.A. C.M.A. Ph.D, 
3-54 A ( and now 2-32), 
Pedda Tumbalam Village and Post, 
Adoni Mandal, 
Kurnool District. … Complainant 
 
 Versus 
 
1. Authorized Signatory, 
TATA Finance Limited, 
43/8, Uppine Aracde, 
Adjacent Swarnlok Complex, 
Kurnool – 518 004. 
 
 
2. Authorized Signatory, 
TATA Finance Limited, 
6-3-637, Akash Ganga Building, 
Flot No. 202, Khairatabad, 
Hyderabad – 500 004. 
 
 
3. Authorized Signatory, 
TATA Finance Limited, 
Bazzole Comple, I floor, 
V.N.Purav Marg, Chembur, 
Mumbai – 400 071, 
Maharashtra. … Opposite parties 
 
 
 
 This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the 
presence of Sri. M.Azmathulla, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. 
P. Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite party No.1 , 2 and 3 
and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the 
following. 
  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
ORDER 
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President) 
C.C.No.17/08 
 
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s 11 and 12 of C.P.Act 
seeking direction on the opposite parties to issue clearance / no due 
certificate , pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation , Rs.1 lakh for mental 
agony , Rs.5,000/- as costs and other reliefs entitled in the exigencies 
of the case alleging deficiency of the part of the opposite parties in 
illegal seizure of his vehicle bearing No. AP 21 V 9984 on 18-05-2007 
with other valuable articles and selling it arbitrarily without terminating 
the hire purchase agreement bearing No. CVH 791991 dated 01-02-
2005 and making the sale absolute inspite of the payment of 23 
periodical installments out of 59 , apart from the initial payment of 
Rs. 40,000/- and not responding to his legal notice dated 05-11-2007. 
 
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this 
case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance 
through their counsel and contested the case filling its written version 
denying any of its liability to the complainants claim. 
 
3. The written version of the opposite party No. 2 adopted by the 
opposite parties 1 and 3 firstly contends that the opposite party No. 1 
and 2 were incorrectly described as authorized signatories of TATA 
Finance Limited as they non exist and so the non maintainability of the 
case against them a s TATA Finance merged with TATA motors 
consequent to the order of Mumbai High Court dated 24-07-2005 in 
C.P.No.257/05 , secondly the abstract of payment shown in para No.2 
of the complaint as incorrect , thirdly any hire purchase agreement to 
it with the complainant as the agreement with the complainant was an 
hypothecation cum guarantor cum loan agreement for the payment 
availed in all to the tune of Rs.4,53,150/- i.e,, loan for vehicle 
Rs.3.42,000/- + financial charges Rs.1,11,150/- + Insurance premium 
of Rs.30,000/- and the schedule for its payment was 59 monthly 
installments , the first to 58 being Rs.8,200/- per month and the 
residuary amount in the 59th installment, thirdly the purpose of loan 
availed by complainant as for commercial purpose fourthly as per the  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
terms of said agreement in case of default of payment of loan 
installment the right to opposite party to repossess the vehicle , fifthly 
the complainant defaulted in payment of installments inspite of 
several notices of the opposite party and contravened the terms and 
conditions of agreement of hypothecation ,sixthly the repossession of 
the vehicle by the opposite party on 18-05-2007 at the default of 
payment of due periodical installments of loan and the sale of said 
vehicle was made for realization of the outstanding amount was in 
accordance with the terms and conditions of hypothecation agreement 
at the non responsive conduct of the complainant , seventhly the sale 
was made after taking necessary steps and obtaining certificate and 
reports from valuator and so any arbitrariness in said sale and eightly 
the case of the complainant is in circumvention of real facts with 
malafide intention and there by any entitleness to the complainant for 
the reliefs sought . 
 
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side 
has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A33 and Ex.X1 
to X5 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant the opposite party 
side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 and B9 and 
sworn affidavit of the opposite party No. 2 . 
 
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant 
has made out any alleged deficiency of service on the part of the 
opposite parties to hold their liability to the complainants claim. 
 
6. As per the opposite parties the said contingency of repossession 
of the lorry of the complainant and its sale occurred for realization of 
the loan amount due under said agreement in Ex.B2 on default of 
payment of some installments by the complainant . Hence before 
going to aspect of any irregularities or illegalities in said seizure and 
sale , it is remaining pertinent to find out as to the truth or 
otherwiseness in said default in payment of installments due under 
said loan. 
 
7. The loan of Rs.4,83,150/- barrowed under Ex.B2 by the 
complainant from the opposite parties was scheduled vide Ex.A1 for its  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
repayment at Rs.8,200/- per month for first 58 monthly installments 
and the residuary amount of Rs. 7,550/- under last 59 monthly 
installment and the said loan repayment schedule commenced from 
01-02-2005 . The opposite parties admit receipt of amount of 22 
installments from the complainant up to February, 2007 though 
irregularly paid and allege default of payment of periodical loan 
installments thereafter inspite of notice dated 15-05-2007. Hence from 
the above what remains clear is that the number of installments 
payment defaulted by complainant were 37 (59 -22) but for any 
cogent material from the side of the complainant taking to otherwise. 
While the Ex.A2 alleges payment of 22 installments amount at the 
schedule rate by 10-03-2007 and totals the said payment to 
Rs.2,20,800/- including the initial down payment of Rs.40,000/- , the 
Ex.B9 envisages represents payments of 22 installments to the tune 
of Rs.1,87,789/- by 05-04-2007 . The material in Ex.A3 to A30 as 
covers the period prior to commencement of the default and so they 
require any much appreciation than what they stands for. As any 
cogent material envisaging any further payment from the complainant 
side the complainant holds the due of other installments amount 
payable as per terms of agreement in Ex.B2 . 
 
8. The opposite parties admits that as the complainant defaulted 
the further installments due it has taken the repossession of the said 
vehicle on 18-05-2007 , as condition No. 16 ( 1 ) ( i ) of Ex.B2 
enables the seizure of said asset without any specific intervention of a 
Court or any court order . 
 
9. Even though the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana in Tarun Bhargava Vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 
P & H Page 98 – says the hypothecatee cannot take possession of 
security without intervention of court in case of default in payment of 
installments , going to the extent of holding a clause for such seizure 
as void if any exists in said loan cum hypothecation agreement , and 
the financier who seizes forcibly as criminally liable and the Hon’ble 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 
in Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited Vs Surekha 
Khanozi Khemnar reported in I (2006) CPJ 46 (NC) also holds  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
as such and the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission , New Delhi in city crop Maruthi Fianance Limited 
Vs S.Vijayalakshmi reported in III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC) holds 
permitting hypothecate to physically repossess the 
hypothecated goods against wishes of hypothecator enables 
hypothecatee to take law in his own hands and deprive the 
hypothecator of his defence by depriving him use of goods , but as 
Sec. 13 (1) of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial 
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act - 2002 ( i.e, Act 54 of 
2002) provides the enforcement of the security interest without the 
intervention of the Court or tribunal subjecting it to the other 
provisions of sub sections of said section and till the said Sec.13 of 
said Act is held void or ultravires the applicability of the said section 
lies in the enforcement of security by creditors for realization of due 
amount of loan and the Hon’ble A.P.High Court in State Bank of India 
Vs S .B .Shah Ali and others reported in AIR 1995 AP 134 also holds 
the power of hypothecatee to sell the hypothecate property without 
intervention of the Court in case of default in payment of installments 
, there appears any illegality in seizure and sale of the complainants 
vehicle under hypothecation to the opposite parties under Ex.B2 as 
long as it does not contravene the provisions laid under Sec.13 (1) of 
supra stated Act while effecting seizure and sale etc. 
 
10. Sec.13 (2) of Act 54 of 2002 r/w Rule 3 of The Security Interest 
(Enforcement) Rules – 2002 warrants service of demand notice on 
borrower who defaulted payment of installments . The opposite parties 
contend on default of payments of installments the complainant was 
caused a notice on 15-05-2007 vide Ex.B4 . The said Ex.B4 calls upon 
the payment from complainant alleging defaults of due installments. 
Hence the opposite party appears to have complied the requirements 
under the supra provisions for effecting seizure to repossess the 
vehicle for proceeding to realize the outstanding due amounts . 
 
11. The seizure of the complainants vehicle was said to have been 
done by the opposite party on 26-06-2007 . As the Ex.B4 dates to 21 
-12-2006 the said seizure remains to be about 7 months to said 
demand notice in Ex.B4 . As Sec.13 (2) of Act 54 of 2002 requires 60  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 6 - 
days time from the date of notice for discharge of the outstanding due 
and failing on which the secured creditor shall be entitle to exercise all 
or any right under Sub Sec 4 i..e, to take possession and effect sale 
etc., the opposite party appears to have complied the requirements 
under the Act for taking possession of the hypothecated vehicle of 
complainant in the absence of any material as to discharge of the 
outstanding due demanded in Ex.B4 . 
 
12. Sec.13 (4) (a ) of Act 54/2002 enables the secured creditor to 
sell the secured asset of the borrower for realizing from the secured 
asset the outstanding due amount in case the borrower fail to 
discharge his liability in full within 60 days from the demand notice. 
 
13. From the complaint pleadings the seizure of the vehicle under a 
panchanama appears to be in the knowledge of the complainant . 
There is any material such as any police report of complainant on the 
opposite parties as to any forcible seizure of the said vehicle of the 
complainant to find out any relevant applicability of the decision of 
Hon’ble Panjab and Haryana High Court in Tarun Bhargava Vs 
State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 P & H – 98 which holds 
criminal liability of financier for forcible repossession of the secured 
asset in case of default of payment of installments , and the decision 
of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , 
New Delhi in City Crop Maruthi Finance Limited Vs S. Vijaya 
Lakshmi reported in III ( 2007) CPJ 161 (NC) which deprcates 
the forcible seizure of vehicle hiring musclemen as recovery agents 
and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manager ICICI Bank 
Limited Vs Prakash Kaur and others reported in AIR 2007 SC 1349 
which also holds recovery to be made through legal means and not by 
hiring musclemen as recovery agents , appear to be of any relevant 
application to the facts and circumstances of the complainants case. 
 
14. The Hon’ble MPSCRDC at Bhopal in its decision in 
Sankaltha Prasad Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company 
Rewa (MP) and others reported in V (2007) CPJ 184 holds the 
repossession of the vehicle without prior notice is arbitrary and 
there by amounts to deficiency of service. But as the opposite party  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 7 - 
complied with said requirements vide its notice in Ex.B4 there appears 
any relevant application of said decision to the facts and circumstances 
of the complainants case and there by they remain of any avail of it to 
the complainant . 
 
15. The status of the complainant is of the borrower to the opposite 
party under the said agreement in Ex.B2 which was made for the 
purchase of the TATA 207 of the vehicle bearing registration No. AP 21 
V 9984 . When the loan was granted to the complainant from the 
opposite party and the complainant purchased the said vehicle from 
the finances so released by the opposite party there remains any privy 
for expecting any service except that of barrower and lender and 
discharge of the liability , to the lender , by the barrower for the 
amount barrowed and so any services remains due to the complainant 
from the opposite party except the release the secured asset from 
hypothecation on discharge of entire due amount by the barrower . 
Hence the complainant being availing or entitled for any service of the 
opposite party under said Ex.B2 agreement can have any grievance of 
deficiency of said service to acquire the status of consumer to have 
ventilation of his present grievances for redressal under C.P.Act as 
per the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes 
Redressal Commission New Delhi in Ram Desh Lahara Vs 
Magma Leasing Limited reported in III (2006) CPJ 247 . 
 
16. The conversion of hypothecated property without notice as per 
the decision in M.S. Gullar Enterprises Private Limited Vs 
Punjab National Bank Limited reported in 1993 (2) CPR Pg652 
may give raise to a civil dispute but not a consumer dispute as 
define under Sec. 2 (1) (e) of the C.P.Act 1986 , the grievance of 
complainant is remaining out of the scope of the enquiry under C.P.Act 
. 
17. Apart from the above there is any documentary record from the 
complainant side as to the total discharge of loan amount for the 
vehicle purchased availing loan agreement under Ex.B2 and the 
written version of the opposite party No. 2 contending that the seized 
vehicle of the complainant was sold for realizing the outstanding due 
amount of loan availed under Ex.B2 complying all the required  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 8 - 
formalities . As per the decision of National Consumer Disputes 
Redressal Commission , New Delhi in Shriram Transport 
Finance Company Limited Vs Surekha Khanoji Khemnar 
reported in I (2006) CPJ 46 (NC) when certain amount is 
outstanding from the borrower and the repossession of the vehicle was 
made without intervention of the Court for realization of the due 
amount it holds that the order of the State Commission directing the 
financier to release the seized vehicle and the complainant to pay the 
residuary installments was just and equitable . 
 
18. The opposite parties except alleging due compliance of all the 
formalities for sale of the seized vehicle did neither place any such 
documentary records in substantiation of the said sale nor furnished 
any detailed particulars as to the amount for which it was sold and to 
whom it was sold and the mode of disposal of surplus amount of sale 
that remaind if any after adjust of the outstanding due amount of the 
complainant etc., Nor the opposite parties placed any material as to 
terminates of Ex.B2 agreement for effecting seizure and sale of said 
vehicle. 
 
19. Hence in the light of the above supra stated decision an order 
directing the opposite parties to release the seized vehicle ( i.e, TATA 
207 bearing Registration No. AP 21 V 9984) to the complainant on 
discharge of the outstanding due amount of the loan on the said lorry 
by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of Ex.B2 , appears 
to be equitable and just to meet the ends of natural justice. 
 
20 Therefore in the result of the above discussion, the case of the 
complainant is allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to 
release the seized vehicle of the complainant i.e, (TATA 207 bearing 
Registration No. AP 21 V 9984) or the cost of the said vehicle if release 
of the vehicle is not possible to the complainant on the complainant 
discharging the outstanding due amount of loan on said vehicle as per 
the terms and conditions of Ex.B2. Time granted for compliance of the 
directions is one month from the date of receipt of this order. In the 
circumstances of the case each party to the proceeding shall bare their 
cost.  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 9 - 
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and 
pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 09th day of June, 2009. 
 
 
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER 
 
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 
Witnesses Examined 
 
 
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil 
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:- 
 
 Ex.A1. Repayment schedule dated 21-02-2005. 
 
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dt.05-11-07 to OP’s along with 
courier receipt & delivery sheet & certificate of posting. 
 
Ex.A3. Central Bank of India Pass Book NO.12053 of complainant. 
 
Ex.A4. Office copy of letter dated 18-06-2005 of complainant to 
OP’s along with courier receipt and xerox DD dated 18-06-
2005. 
 
Ex.A5. Letter of OP dt.31-04-2005 to complainant. 
 
Ex.A6. Office copy of letter dt.04-07-2005 of complainant to OP 
along with Xerox copy of DD dated 04-07-2005. 
 
Ex.A7. Statement of account from 31-08-2005 to 10-01-2006 
pertaining to complainant account No.11195. 
 
Ex.A8. Office copy of letter dt.13-10-2005 of complainant to OP’s 
along with courier receipt and Xerox copy of dt.13-10-
2005. 
 
Ex.A9. Letter dt.22-09-2005 addressed to complainant as to 
dishonor of cheque dt.20-07-2005 
 
Ex.A10. Office copy of letter dt. 30-11-2005 of complainant to OP’s 
along with courier receipt and xerox of DD dated 30-11-
2005. 
 
Ex.A11. Letter dt. 14-11-2005 of OP’s to complainant as to 
dishonor of cheque dt.20-09-2005. 
 
Ex.A12. Office copy of letter dt. 31-12-2005 of complainant to the 
OP’s along with courier receipt & Xerox of DD 
dt.31-12-2005. 
  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 10 - 
Ex.A13. Letter dt. 14-12-2005 addressed to complainant by OP’s as 
to dishonor of cheque dt 20-11-2005 
 
Ex.A14. Office copy of letter dt.03-02-2006 of complainant to OP’s 
along with certificate of posting courier receipt & Xerox of 
DD dt.03-02-2006. 
 
Ex.A15. Letter dt.06-01-2006 of OP’s to complainant as to dishonor 
of cheque dt.20-11-2005. 
 
Ex.A16. Office copy of letter dt. 02-03-2006 of complainant to the 
OP’s along with courier receipt & Xerox copy of DD 
dt.02-03-2006. 
 
Ex.A17. Office copy of letter dt.10-04-2006 of complainant to OP’s 
along with courier receipt and DD dated 10-04-2006. 
 
Ex.A18. Letter dt.06-03-2006 of the OP’s to complainant as to 
dishonor of cheque dt.20-01-2006 
 
Ex.A19. Office copy of letter dt. 06-05-2006 of complainant to OP’s 
along with courier receipt and DD 06-05-2006. 
 
Ex.A20. Letter dt.10-04-2006 of the OP’s to complainant as to 
return of cheque dt.20-03-2006. 
 
Ex.A21. Office copy of letter dt. 06-06-2006 of the complainant to 
the OP’s along with courier receipt & Xerox of DD 
dt.06-06-2006.. 
 
Ex.A22. Letter dt.20-05-2006 addressed to complainant by OP as 
to return of cheque dt 20-04-2006 
 
Ex.A23. Office copy of letter dt. 08-07-2006 of the complainant to 
the OP’s along with courier receipt and DD dt.8-07-2006. 
 
Ex.A24. Office copy of letter dt. 14-08-2006 of the complainant to 
the OP along with courier receipt & Xerox copy of DD 
dt.14-08-2006. 
 
Ex.A25. Office copy of letter dt.27-09-2006 of complainant to OP’s 
along with Xerox copy of DD dated 27-09-2006 and courier 
receipt.. 
 
Ex.A26. Office copy of letter dt.30-11-2006 of complainant to OP’s 
along with DD dt.30-11-2006. 
 
Ex.A27. Office copy of letter dt. 15-02-2007 of complainant to the 
OP’s along with courier receipt & Xerox of DD 
dt.15-02-2007. 
 
Ex.A28. Letter dt. 28-02-2007 of complainant to the OP’s along 
with courier receipt & Xerox copy of DD dated 28-02-2007 
 
Ex.A29. Office copy of letter dt. Nil of complainant to OP’s along 
with courier & Xerox copy of DD dated 10-03-2007.  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 11 - 
 
Ex.A30. Office copy of letter dt.12-01-2006 of complainant to OP’s 
& counsels along with courier receipt & Xerox copy of DD 
dt.31-12-2005. 
 
Ex.A31. Registered Notice dt.20-12-2005 of counsels of OP’s to 
complainant & others. 
 
Ex.A32. Sale certificate as to TATA 207 D1 pick up. 
 
Ex.A33. Sale invoice dt.08-02-2005 as to 207 D1 pick up. 
 
 
 
 
Ex.X1. Bo Journal of Pedda Tumbalam from 08-04-2006. 
 
Ex.X2. Bo Journal of Pedda Tumbalam from 25-07-2007 to 07-07-
2008. 
 
Ex.X3. Bo Journal of Pedda Tumbalam from 26-12-2006 to 21-07-
2007. 
 
Ex.X4. B-Register of motor vehicle from 24 for vehicle No. 
AP21V9984. 
 
Ex.X5. Certificate of witness of Transport Vehicles Inspection 
record registration particulars of vehicle No.AP21V9984. 
 
 
 
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: 
 
 
 
Ex.B1. Authorization dt.15-02-2008 in favour of M.Naveen Kumar. 
 
Ex.B2. Agreement dt.31-01-2005 executed by the complainant 
(borrower) & his guarantor. 
 
Ex.B3. Irrecoverable Power of attorney dt. 31-05-2005 executed 
by the complainant along with schedule. 
 
Ex.B4. Legal Notice dt. 21-12-2006 of OP’s to complainant. 
 
Ex.B5. Statement of account of the complainant for contract 
No.10791991. 
 
Ex.B6. State of account dt.26-04-2008 as to contract details. 
 
Ex.B7. Receipt information as to contract NO.10791991 of 
complainant as On 10-04-2007. 
 
Ex.B8. Expense details pertaining to contract NO.10791991 as on 
10-04-2007. 
  
 Cond.,
 
 
 
 
 
- 12 - 
 
Ex.B9. Statement as to repayments as to contract No.10791991 as 
on 10-04-2007. 
 
 
 
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER 
 
 
 
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the 
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987// 
 
Copy to:- 
 
Complainant and Opposite parties 
 
 
 
Copy was made ready on : 
Copy was dispatched on :