KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.48/08 JUDGMENT DATED 8.12.09 PRESENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER The Manager, M/s hDFC Bank Ltd.,VGP Building, -- APPELLANT Near Iron Bridge, Vadakkumbhagam Ward, Kollam – 691 001. (By Adv.V.S.Sunilkumar) Vs. Benny S/0 Andrew, Jojo Nivas, Mukkadu, Meenathucherry, Kavanadu P.O, Shakthikulangara, Kollam. -- RESPONDENT From Gunathazhathu Kannimelcherry, Shakthikulangara, Kollam. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 17th January 2008 passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC.No.366/05. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank in recovering possession of the vehicle which was purchased by the complainant by availing a loan from the opposite party/HDFC Bank Ltd. The opposite party entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency in service on his part. He contended that he took possession of the vehicle because of the default on the part of the complainant in making payment of the loan instalments. Before the forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and P1 to P9 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite party, DW1 and D1 to D3 documents were produced. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the forum below passed the impugned order allowing the complaint in CC.366/05 with a direction to refund a sum of Rs.23,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of payment with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17th January, 2008 passed by CDRF in CC.366/05 the present appeal is filed by the opposite party therein. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the appellant/opposite party. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the forum below. He further submitted that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in taking forcible possession of the vehicle owned by the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in taking forcible possession of the vehicle and sale of the vehicle? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.1.08 passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC.366/05? 4. POINTS 1 & 2:- Admittedly, the respondent/complainant executed a loan agreement for availing loan of Rs.36,138/-. He made a payment of Rs.12,000/- on the date of execution of the agreement. It is true that there occurred default on the part of the respondent/complainant in making payment towards the loan instalments and thereby opposite party took possession of the vehicle by force. It is also an admitted fact that the opposite party sold the aforesaid vehicle. Thus, the opposite party/HDFC Bank has violated the principles enunciated by the Hon. Supreme Court in ICICI Bank’s case report in (2007) 2 SCC 711 (SC). The appellant/Bank was not expected to take law into their hands. If there was default on the part of the complainant in making payment of the loan amount, it was incumbent upon the opposite party to approach the court for redressal of his grievances. They were never expected to take forcible possession of the vehicle. It is further to be noted that the appellant/opposite party has also sold the vehicle without the consent of the complainant. Thus, the Forum below has rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party, HDFC bank Ltd. So, the impugned order passed by the forum below directing refund Rs.23,000/- with compensation and cost is to be upheld. The present appeal deserves dismissal. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there will be no order as to costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER | 
