JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) I.A.No.5646 of 2014 We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since our direction dated 06-08-2014 had not been complied by 21-08-2014 imposition of cost was certainly justified. The I.A.No.5646 of 2014 stands dismissed. REVISION PETITION NO.2679 OF 2014 1. The complainant purchased a Renault Car for a consideration of Rs.6,10,000/- out of which Rs.4,90,000/- was financed by the petitioner. The loan taken by the complainant was repayable in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.14,685/-. The complainant gave 17 blank post-dated cheques to the petitioner. He made payment of Rs.2,87,698/- between 12-03-2009 to 23-12-2010. On 14-01-2011, the petitioner required the complainant to pay arrears amounting to Rs.73,000/- and warned to seize the vehicle in case it was not done. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question was later seized by the petitioner. A notice dated 31-03-2011 was sent by the complainant to the petitioner in this regard, seeking release of the vehicle. However, the said vehicle was eventually sold by the petitioner on 26-05-2011. The case of the complainant is that it was done without any notice to him. Being aggrieved from the acts of the petitioner the complainant approached the Chittoor District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum) seeking the following reliefs: (a) direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,21,230/- which the complainant invested on the vehicle, (b) directing to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards damages, due to deficiency on their part to the complainant, (c) direct the opposite party to deliver the vehicle AP03-TU 1179 and (d) directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,0000/- towards mental agony. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and more than Rs.73,425/- had become due from him. Denying the seizure of the vehicle it was claimed in the reply that the complainant himself had handed over the vehicle to the petitioner expressing his inability to pay the remaining installments. Thereafter, the vehicle was sold and the amount realized from the sale of the vehicle was adjusted towards the payment of the loan taken by the complainant. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 04-04-2012 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant towards damages. Another payment of Rs.50,000/- was directed on account of the deficiency in service. The petitioner was also held entitled to regular cost of Rs.5,000/- as well as punitive cost for the same amount. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Tirupathi (for short, the State Commission) by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 25-04-2014 the State Commission reduced the amount payable to the complainant to Rs.1,00,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- towards cost. Being still dissatisfied the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the State Commission, on examination of the record came to the conclusion that the complainant had defaulted in payment of the installments due to the petitioner. The State Commission was of the view that the petitioner, therefore, was justified in seizing the vehicle. However, the said Commission found deficiency on the part of the petitioner in selling the vehicle in question and, therefore, directed payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of the said deficiency. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated, on instructions, that there was no public auction held for the sale of the vehicle in question. He also admits, again on instructions, that no public notice in the newspapers was published regarding sale of the aforesaid vehicle. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner-company had invited quotations from different persons and the vehicle was sold to the highest bidder for a consideration of Rs.2,90,000/-. However, the learned counsel is not able to tell us, as to what was the mode of selecting the persons from whom quotations were invited by the petitioner-company for purchase of the vehicle. In these circumstances it would be safe to infer that the quotations were invited by the petitioner-company from the persons of its own choice, without due regard to the interests of the complainant. 6. In our opinion, the petitioner-company, before selling the vehicle in question should have given a public notice in a newspaper, widely circulated in the locality where the vehicle was to be sold. The mode of sale could have been either by open auction or by inviting bids after inspecting the vehicle. But, a fare opportunity was required to be given to the members of the public including the complainant to participate in the process of the sale of the vehicle. That obviously did not happen in this case since no public notice was given before selling the vehicle in question. Consequently, neither the complainant, nor the members of public at large got an opportunity to participate in the sale process. As a result, it cannot be said that the vehicle sold by the petitioner-company fetched an optimum price, in the process adopted by the petitioner-company for its sale. 7. In these circumstances when there was no public notice issued before sale of the vehicle, and it is not known on what basis, the bidders from whom quotations were invited were selected by the petitioner-company, we, therefore, find no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission with respect to the deficiency in service as far as the sale of the vehicle in question is concerned. 8. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. |
