BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
FA 1240 of 2013 against CC No. 857 of 2009, District Consumer Forum- II, Hyderabad.
Between
HDFC Bank Limited
3rd Floor, Minerva Complex,
S.D.Road,
Secunderabad – 500 003
Rep. by its Manager …Appellant/opposite party
And
G.Bhaskar Rao
Aged about 36 years,
R/o.H.No.2-4-31/4,
Road no.2, Snehapuri Colony,
R.K.Puram, Dilsukhnagar,
Hyderabad Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.. N. Sudarshan
Counsel for the Respondent : Party in person
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
AND
SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order : ( As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao , Hon’ble Member )
01 The opposite party is appellant. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.07.2013 in CC 857 of 2009 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad.
02 The facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal are that the respondent purchased a Hero Honda Passion Plus from Venkateswara Motors, Narayanaguda for a sum of Rs.42,250/- by paying Rs.4,649/- towards initial payment and the appellant financed the remaining amount of Rs.37,601/- under loan account bearing No.10721790 to be re-paid @ Rs.1,660/- per month for 36 months inclusive of interest for the period from 05-11-2006 till 05-11-2009. He paid an amount of Rs.53,120/- excluding the initial amount of Rs.4,649/- and the balance amount due was only two installments i.e., Rs.3,320/-. The agents of the appellant have seized the vehicle on 18.09.2009 from his house in his absence without issuing any notice to him. The respondent approached the appellant with a request of receive he balance amount and to release the vehicle. The appellant had not settled the matter. Hence, the complaint to release the vehicle or in the alternative for refund of Rs.57,769/- with interest @ 24% pa from 18.09.2009 and for issuance of statement of loan account, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.10,000/-
03. The appellant Bank was set exparte.
04 The respondent in support of his case filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex. A1 to A7. On behalf of the appellant Bank , its Manager( Legal) filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex. B-1 to B-12.
05 On the basis of the material available on record, the District Forum allowing the complaint in part directed the appellant to pay Rs.25,040/- with subsequent interest @ 9% pa from 21.10.2009 , Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
06 Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have filed appeal contending that the District Forum failed to see that the appellant is entitled to repossess the vehicle without any prior notice on default in making payment of the due amount and that the respondent/complainant did not pay the due amount and violated the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase agreement and hence they have right to repossess the vehicle, the loan recall notice dated 18.12.2008 recalling the loan amount and the statement of Account which moved the loan account to non performing asset having dues of Rs.6640/-and its future due of 3 EMI Rs.4980/- were issued and that there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus prayed to set aside the order by allowing the appeal
07 The learned counsel for the appellant bank filed written submission.
08 .The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law ?
09. The respondent purchasing the Hero Honda Passion plus on finance and under Hire Purchase Agreement with the appellants finance company is not disputed. The appellant had financed loan amount of Rs.37,601/- to be repaid in instalments @ Rs.1,660/- in 36 EMIs is also not disputed. The appellant repossessed the vehicle on 18.09.2009 on the premise that the respondent failed to pay the outstanding loan amount.
10 The respondent questioned repossession and sale of the vehicle on the premise that no notice was issued to him either at the time of repossession of the vehicle or prior to sale of the vehicle.
11 The loan is repayable in 36 equated monthly installments @Rs.1660/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant issued repossession letter dated 19.09.2009 that the respondent was due Rs.19,900/- and in spite of receipt of the notice the respondent has not paid the amount and as such the appellant sold the vehicle for an amount of Rs.27,300/-. He has further submitted that after adjusting the sale proceeds to the account of the respondent the appellant addressed letter dated 12.11.2009 requesting the respondent to receive the balance amount of Rs.6,326/-.
12. The appellant sold the vehicle for an amount of Rs.27,300/-. The District Forum has deducted 10% depreciation and assessed the value of the vehicle at Rs.35,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no any rule that the vehicle should be sold for a value by deducting 10% depreciation. He has submitted that in the case of resale of repossessed vehicles no person would purchase the vehicle by deducting 10% depreciation anticipating claims and counter claims and expected litigation. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel as the appellant sold the vehicle at the risk of such anticipated claims and the appellant cannot say that no person will purchase the vehicle after deducting ten percentage depreciation.
13 Admittedly, the respondent was absent at the time the appellant sold the vehicle presumably in auction stated to have been conducted in the month of October, 2009. As such, the appellant had chosen to sell the vehicle in the absence of the respondent. It is pertinent to note that the amount due as claimed by the appellant at the relevant time was lesser than the value of the vehicle. The appellant has the obligation to protect the interest of the respondent in the vehicle. The appellant has to sell the vehicle for maximum value which would not only protect the interest of the respondent and it would also discharge the liability of the respondent. The appellant has not evinced due diligence in selling the vehicle. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any irregularity in the order of the District Forum as to the assessment of the value of the vehicle.
14. The District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation besides granting interest @ 9% pa on the amount of Rs.25,040/-. The interest has been awarded as compensation and further sum of Rs.5,000/- granted towards compensation appears to be excessive.
15 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Gujarath vs Shantilal Mangaldas ” AIR 1969 SC 634, held the compensation to mean
“…..In ordinary parlance the expression compensation means anything given to make things equivalent; a thing given to or to make amends for loss recompense, remuneration or pay, it need not therefore necessarily in terms of money. The phraseology of the Constitutional provision also indicates that compensation need not necessarily be in terms of money because it expressly provides that the law may specify the principles on which, and the manner in which , compensation is to be determined and given . If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression ‘paid’ would have been more appropriate”.
16. The Supreme Court held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable. In “Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital and others”2000SAR (Civil) 935 the Apex Court stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the consumer and the change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held
“While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge”.
17 In view of the principle laid in the aforementioned cases, we are inclined to hold the interest awarded towards compensation would meet ends of justice. Thus, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards compensation is liable to be set aside. We make it clear that the rest of the reliefs awarded by the District Forum would stand confirmed.
18 In the result the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum. Relief granted for Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation is set aside. The rest of the order is confirmed. There shall be no separate order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
DATED : 22.7.2004.
