Kerala

Trissur

op/04/1081

Joy. K. P - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A. D. Benny

31 Mar 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMAyyanthole , Thrissur
CONSUMER CASE NO. 04 of 1081
1. Joy. K. PKanjirathingal (H), P. O. Poothole, West Fort , Thrissur ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :A. D. Benny, Advocate for
For the Respondent :V. K. Sathyajith and V. R. Jyothish, Advocate

Dated : 31 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
 
           The complainant had availed a consumer loan of Rs.21,000/- from the respondents on 29/3/03 vide loan No.222117. The loan was availed to purchase a motor cycle by name Yamaha libero. It has to be repaid by 36 instalments and the complainant had repaid the loan amount without any default.   But he had committed 2 instalments in default and the respondents men seized the vehicle forcibly on 18/8/04. No prior notice was given before seizing the vehicle. After the seizure   the respondents issued a notice to pay an amount of Rs.25,200/- before 24/8/04. The complainant is not liable to pay this amount and he is ready   to remit the two instalments . The complaint was amended since the vehicle  was sold by the respondents. It was sold after filing of the complaint. Hence the complaint.
 
         2. Both the respondents are called absent and set exparte.
 
         3.The complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits P1 to P5 to substantiate his case.
 
          4. According to the complainant he is not liable to pay the amount demanded by the respondents. He states that he had to pay only 2 instalments and other 34 instalments were paid by him. He had availed the loan to purchase a Motor cycle and it was forcibly taken away by the men of respondents and it is against law. Later the complaint is amended because the vehicle was sold by the respondents during the pendency of this complaint. According to him he is not liable to pay the amount wanted by the respondents and he is entitled to get back the vehicle. There is no evidence to the contrary.
 
          5. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the cost of the vehicle after deducting the two instalment amount and compensation for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

             Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of March 2010.


HONORABLE Rajani P.S., MemberHONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Sasidharan M.S, Member