Date of Filing: 14.07.2008<br /> Date of Order:07.11.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1574 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Smt. Jaya.S,<br /> W/o K. Ravi Kumar,<br /> R/at No.136/1, Harappanahalli,<br /> Jigani Post, Anekal Taluk,<br /> Bangalore-562 106. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Chandru,<br /> Sri. Lakshmi Venkateswara Automobiles, <br /> No.90, II Cross, 8th Main, III Phase, <br /> J.P. Nagar, Bangalore-560 078.<br /> <br /> 2. Asoka Leyland,<br /> Finance, Bull Temple Road,<br /> Petrol Bunk (opp), Sekhar Hospital, (near)<br /> Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to hand over the vehicle TVS XL bearing Registration No.KA-51 J-2628 and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant had purchased TVS XL bearing Registration No.KA-51 J-2628 from the opposite party No.1 for a sale consideration of Rs.21,320/- vide receipt No.351 dated 29/06/2006. The complainant has paid Rs.10,350/- on 29/6/2006 and the remaining balance may be repaid in 13 installment and the opposite party was also agreed for the same. The opposite party has taken the amount from the complainant by way of 9 cheques for Rs.1080/- each drawn on Vijaya Bank, Bannerghatta, Anekal Taluk. The complainant had paid Rs.14,040/- to the opposite party for the above said transaction and the opposite party agreed for the same. The complainant had given another 11 cheques but the opposite party had drawn two cheque for Rs.2,160/- instead of Rs.1,080/-. Viewed from the above said angle the opposite party had got two other cheques in his custody with a malafide intention and also an oblique motive and in spite of this the complainant had given only a blank cheque with good intention. The opposite party taking this situation is demanding another sum of Rs.7,900/- without any valid law and seized the vehicle, taken the same and kept in custody on 22/06/2008 and demanded the above said illegal amount from the complainant failing which the opposite party will not re-deliver the same at any cost. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Notice was served. They have put in appearance through Advocate. Opposite party No.1 has filed defense version along with statement of account. It is submitted that as per the account maintained by the opposite party the complainant is liable to pay Rs.6,454/- on 05/09/2008. Seizure of the vehicle is not illegal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision has recognized the rights of the Bank to seize the vehicle if the contract provides for the same. Complainant has never stated that she will pay the overdue amount outstanding. Therefore, handing over the possession to the complainant does not arise. <br /> 2. Arguments are heard.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 3. During the course of argument we suggested the learned Advocate for the opposite party No.2 that as per the account statement the over due amount is Rs.4,740/- and the complainant will be directed to pay that amount and take back the vehicle for that suggestion. The learned Advocate for the opposite party fairly and rightly accepted and agreed that the opposite party No.2 is ready to hand over the seized vehicle to the custody of the complainant provided she pays Rs.4,740/- to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has charged Rs.1,714/- as AFC. On our suggestion opposite party No.2 is ready to give up the amount shown towards AFC. The complainant can be directed to pay Rs.4,740/- only and thereafter take back the seized vehicle to her custody. Admittedly, the complainant has paid Rs.14,040/- to the opposite party. The TVS XL two wheeler was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 on 29/06/2006 for Rs.21,320/-. She has paid cash of Rs.10,352/-. Opposite party No.2 has paid remaining balance amount of Rs.10,870/- to the opposite party No.1 towards purchase of the vehicle. Opposite party No.2 already recovered Rs.14,040/- from the complainant. As per the account statement the complainant is still due of Rs. 4,740/-. If this amount is paid they there will be no balance, the account will be closed. The opposite party No.2 seized the vehicle from the custody of the complainant on 22/06/2008. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just, fair and proper to direct the opposite party No.2 to redeliver the possession of the seized TVS XL vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51 J-2628 to the custody of the complainant after receiving Rs.4,740/- from the complainant and loan account shall be closed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No.2 is directed to hand over and redeliver the possession of the seized TVS XL vehicle bearing registration No. KA-51 J-2628 in favour of the complainant after receiving Rs.4,740/- from the complainant immediately and shall close the loan account and opposite party No.2 shall give clearance certificate(no due certificate) to the complainant. 5. Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. <br /> 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER-2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> Rhr<br />