BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1217/2005 AGAINST C.D.No.410/2004, DISTRICTGUNTUR.
Between:
ICICI Bank Limited, 19-14-8,
1st
Vijayawada, represented by its
Branch Manager.
1. Kasa Veeranjaneyulu
Main Road,
2. Tata Finance Limited,
th
3. Annapurna Auto Agency,
Guntur. (R2 and R3 are not necessary parties)
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. B.Viswanadha Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents:Mr.K.Ramakoteshwar Rao-R1
CORAM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Guntur, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant submitted that he purchased Hero Honda CD 100 Red colour Motor Cycle (AP.7S.4360) from M/s.Annapurna Auto Agencies, Old Club Road, Kothapet, Guntur on 10-7-2003 by paying down payment of Rs.14,860/- to 2ndnd 15-8-200315-12-2004 nd nd 12-9-2004, 1st st stopposite party had taken all the relevant papers from him on12-9-2004 12-9-200424-10-2004
Opposite party No.1 filed counter and denied the allegations made by the complainant. ndnd nd
2nd 31st
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum ought to have seen that as per the terms and conditions of agreement
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased Hero Honda on 10-7-2003 by paying a down payment of Rs.14,860/- to 2ndopposite party and for the remaining balance, the complainant took two wheeler loan from 2nd 01-4-2004nd 31-3-2004. 22-9-2004
We observe from the record, Ex.A6, which is Canara Bank Statement dated 13-3-204 that there were six instalments of Rs.2020/- paid by the complainant, the last being27-4-2004. 12-9-200419-10-2004
The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgement of the Supreme Court reported inAIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3721 in CHARANJIT SINGH CHADHA AND OTHERS v. SUDHIR MEHRA
‘This is to place on record that despite our repeated requests,
reminders and personal visits, you have not only failed and
neglected to pay us our contractual dues but also violated
material conditions of the contract, as a result of which we
were completed to take back possession of the aforesaid
asset, I order that the same could be disposed off and the
sale proceeds be adjusted against your account.
Please note that a total sum of rs.29739/- is due and payable
to you as on date, the details of which are as under:
Principal outstanding Overdue/Additional interest charges Cheque Dishonour charges Cheque Representation Charges
Foreclosure charges Possession charges Legal Charges (if any)
Round off
Total Amount payable You are therefore called upon to settle the account by remitting the
aforesaid amount, within seven days from the date of this letter,
failing which, take notice that, we shall be constrained to sell the
above asset to the highest bidder and appropriate the sale proceeds
to your account at your costs and consequences without any
further reference to you.’.
The above letter clearly establishes that the vehicle was already seized and no notice and opportunity were given before seizure to the complainant. NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL COMMISSION, in III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC) inCITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD. inRevision Petition No. 737 of 2005—Decided on 27.7.2007
Forceful seizure of vehicle and Practice of hiring musclemen as recovery agents deprecated, needs to be discouraged. Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicle permitted only through legal means. Banks cannot employ goondas to take possession by force. HirePurchase
PRESIDENT. .23-9-2008
