Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/187/2018

Kiran.K.S S/o Shivamurthy.K.S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam Invest and Finance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.R.Jagadeesh

04 Apr 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28/09/2018

DISPOSED      ON:04/04/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:187/2018

 

DATED: 4^th APRIL 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Kiran.K.S S/o Shivamurthy.K.S, Oposite Navachetana School,Holalkere Main road, Beside Neelakanteshwara Cement Shop, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.R. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	Cholamandalam Invest and Finance Company Ltd., Reptd by its Manager, Branch at 2nd floor, Opp to Neelakanteshwara temple, Next to Janatha bazaar, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.Y.H. Yogendranath, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards costs and  to grant such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 20.06.2017 he has obtained loan of Rs.5,65,000/- from the OP for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle Tata Zest Four wheeler car for taxi purpose by hypothecating his agricultural land bearing sy.No.24/5 measuring 3-acres 25-guntas situated at Nandanahosur as a security purpose.  After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant  got registered the said vehicle with RTO, Chitradurga bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-7441.  The complainant has purchased the said vehicle for his livelihood.  The complainant was paying several installments i.e., in all a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and the OPs have issued receipts for having paid the installments.  After four months of its purchase, the said vehicle met with an accident and damaged, due to the accident, the complainant could not ply the same on the road and he was not able to pay further installments regularly.  The complainant informed the real facts to the OP.  Nonpayment of the installments regularly is not intentional, it is a bonafide.  Such being the case, on 12.06.2018 without any prior notice either in writing or phone, in accordance with the law and procedure, the OP has seized the same illegally and took possession.  Further without any notice, the OP has sold the car only for meager amount against the real value, which caused the complainant to suffer mentally, physically and financially.  The act of the OP is illegal and therefore, the OP has committed deficiency of service and prayed for allow the complaint.   

  3.    On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. Y.H. Yogendranath, Advocate and filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. 

According to the version filed by the OP, it is submitted that, prior to seizing of the above said vehicle, the complainant is a chronic defaulter in paying the loan installment amount.  Therefore, the OP has issued notice to the complainant on 03.01.2018 to pay the arrears of loan due to the company of Rs.5,41,261/- as on 31.12.2017.  But the complainant never comply with the notice.  Therefore, it came to know that, the complainant is playing the said vehicle in Bangalore on hire basis.  So, the OP has issued pre seizure notice and intimation to the complainant to Kodigehalli Police, Bangalore and seized the same by making all the legal procedures and as per the rules and regulations of the company.  When the complainant becomes defaulter in making loan amount, he lost his right on the vehicle.  After seizing of the vehicle, the OP has issued final call notice to the complainant to repay the loan amount of Rs.5,95,121/- and called to get back the vehicle on 14.06.2018 through RPAD.  But, the complainant never come before the OP.  The OP has followed all the rules and procedures before seizing the vehicle, hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.  It is further submitted that, the complainant cannot invoke the provisions of the C.P Act and the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant himself has admitted that the nature of transaction is a commercial transaction.  It is further submitted that, as per the directions, rules and regulations of the Head Office and Zonal Office, this OP has done the job.  Hence, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and therefore, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-9 were got marked and closed his side.   OP has examined on Thippeswamy. K, Legal Co-ordinator as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-7 and closed their side.

 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service in seizing and selling the vehicle and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

         7.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- In Negative. 

                    Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- The complainant has obtained loan from the OP for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle.  After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant has failed to repay the loan amount.  After that, the OP has issued notice to the complainant demanding to repay the loan installment amount.  But the complainant has failed to repay the same.  Again the OP has issued seizure notice to the complainant.  By that time also, the complainant has failed to repay the loan installment.  After that, the OP has seized the vehicle with the Police help.  After seizing the vehicle, the OP has issued notice to the complainant to repay the loan installment due along with interest within 15 days from the date of receiving the notice.  After receiving the notice, the complainant has failed to repay the same.  Finally the OP has sold the seized vehicle in a public auction and adjusted the auction amount to the loan account of the complainant.  The OP has not committed any deficiency of service.  The OP has followed the procedure as contemplated under law before selling the seized vehicle in a public auction.    

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the sides.  No doubt the complainant has obtained the loan from the OP for the purpose of purchasing the Tata Zest Four Wheeler.  After obtaining the loan, the complainant has failed to repay the same.  So, the OP has issued notice to the complainant demanding to repay the installment along with interest.  By that time also, the complainant has failed to do so.  Again the OP has issued seizure notice to the complainant.  By that time also, the complainant has failed to repay the same.  After that the OP has seized the vehicle with the help of Police.  After seizing the vehicle, the OP again issued notice to the complainant asking to come and take back the seized vehicle by paying installment amount along with interest within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.  After receiving the notice, the complainant failed to do so.  Then the OP has sold the seized vehicle in a public auction and adjusted the amount to the loan account of the complainant.  Viewed from any angle, we don’t find any deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The OP has followed the procedure as per law.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 4/04/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures) 

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:- Sri. Thippeswamy. K, by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	RC
02	Ex-A-2:-	Form 42
03	Ex-A-3:-	Road tax paid receipt
04	Ex-A-4:-	Policy
05	Ex-A-5:-	Receipts
06	Ex-A-6:-	Payment schedule
07	Ex-A-7:-	Legal Notice dated 31.08.2018
08	Ex-A-8:-	Letter dated 14.06.2018 by the OP
09	Ex.A-9:-	Postal acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 03.01.2018 by the Op
02	Ex-B-2:-	Letter dated 12.06.2018 to Police Station, Kodigehalli with postal receipt
03	Ex.B-3:-	Letter dated 12.06.2018 to Police Station, Kodigehalli with postal receipt
04	Ex-B-4:-	Letter dated 14.06.2018 by the OP
05	Ex-B-5:-	Inventory sheet
06	Ex.B-6:-	Seizure report
07	Ex-B-7:-	Loan agreement

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**