THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
APPEAL NO.66/2012
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. M/s. Cholamandalam Investment
and Finance Company Limited … Appellant/s
Dare House, First Floor,
No.2, NSC Bose Road,
Chennai-560 056
2. M/s. Cholamandalam Investment
and Finance Company Limited,
No.28/1, Kensington Road,
Opp: Gurudwara, Near Ulsoor Lake,
Bengaluru-560 042
Sl. No.1 and 2 above is represented by
Its officer and power of attorney holder
Sri.Naveen.N.D,
(By Sri.Mohan Malge, Advocate)
V/s
Mr.Beema Rao,
Son of Shivaji Rao,
Aged about 33 years … Respondent/s
House No.201, Balagangadhar Nagar,
Malathahalli, Bengaluru-560 056
(By Sri.V.Lakshmaiah, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Parties/Appellants in complaint No.2930/2010 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the III Addl. Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru which directed these appellants to pay an amount of Rs.2,28,500/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service and submits that the complainant had obtained a financial assistance of Rs.3.00 lakhs for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle, he was not paid the EMIs regularly for which they repossessed the vehicle and subsequently sold. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency of service and sought for return of the vehicle or an alternative for payment of the balance amount, amounting to Rs.2,28,500/-.
2. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay the above said amount. In fact these appellants had seized the vehicle for non-payment of the EMIs regularly. In this regard, they have issued demand notice and also announced paper publication for sale of vehicle. Even in spite of that the complainant not came forward to regularize the loan amount. Having no option, these appellants had sold the vehicle for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and the same was adjusted to the loan account. But without considering the said facts, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed to pay the above said amount. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. Hence prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard from both parties.
4. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, we noticed that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in paying the installments towards the loan. It is also an admitted fact the vehicle was repossessed and paper publication was taken for the purpose of selling of the vehicle through public auction, noticing all these complainant had not forwarded/approached the appellants company to regularize the loan. It is clear negligence on the part of the complainant himself in not regularizing the loan itself. The vehicle was sold in public auction and the same was adjusted to the loan account. We do not find any irregularity or deficiency in service on the part these appellants in adjusting the proceeds of the public auction to the loan of the complainant. The District Commission without considering the said facts allowed the complaint, further the District Commission without a proper document had voluntarily ascertained the value of the vehicle and directed to pay the above said amount. In fact the value of the vehicle itself is Rs.3,60,000/-whereas the District Commission has without any documents has value of the vehicle as Rs.6,00,000/- as there is no amount payable to the complainant after sale in public auction. In spite of that the District Commission is directed to pay the above said amount. The order passed by the District Commission requires to be set aside. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed, since he was chronic defaulter and the appellants had adjusted to the entire loan amount after sale of the vehicle in the public auction. As such the order passed by the District Commission hereby set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed.
The impugned order 8.12.2011 passed by the III Addl. Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.2930/2010 is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
