Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1113/2018

M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.S.Veerabadraswamy - Opp.Party(s)

M.Ashok Kumar

22 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

MR. K.B. SANGANNAVAR                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                    : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1113/2018

 

M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., 2ndCross, Ashokanagar, Mandya Rep. by its POA, T.J.Ravi (By Sri. M.AshokKumar) V/s	……Appellant
M.S. Veerabadraswamy S/o. Sadashivappa D.No.251, River Street, Maddur Town	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY MR.K.B.SANGANNAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandyain C.C.No.147/2016 dated 19.06.2018.

2. Commission heard the Learned Counsel for appellant.  We examined the impugned order and appeal memo.
3. Learned Counsel for appellant would submit that forum below has failed to consider certain legal aspects of the matter while in appreciation of the evidence placed on record by parties to the complaint.  He would submit that complainant purchased commercial vehicle bearing No. KA 11 A 5662 with condition to repay the loan amount in 48 installments of Rs.26,450/- per month commencing from 01.03.2013 and after purchase of the vehicle, complainant failed to pay installments regularly and he failed to pay such installments despite OP’s repeated reminders and requests.  In such circumstances, OP without any option repossessed the said vehicle and after due notice the vehicle was sold as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and sale proceeds were appropriated towards loan account of the complainant and in this regard drive our attention towards paragraph 9 of the impugned order, wherein forum held that right of repossessing the vehicle purchased by complainant is with the OPs. 
4. Further learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that on 05.06.2015 a demand notice was caused on complainant, since, he is a chronic defaulter in paying installmentsagreed to be paid and to pay till completion of the loan amount.   A notice was caused on complainant on 22.01.2016, was not at all considered by forum below.  The forum below while cancelling the auction sale in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA11 A 5746 directed to redeliver the vehicle in favour of complainant within two months and directed complainant to pay the arrears of installments in one lump-sum and awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation costs which in our view does not sustainable considering the factsof consumer complaint.  The forum below has to examine whether complainant fits in within the definition of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and to examine whether proper legal recourse was followed by OP before vehicle could be sold. Thus in our view these two points has to be examine afresh affording opportunity to both parties.  In such conclusion, matterrequires to be remanded back to forum below. 
5. Accordingly, we proceed to allow the appeal filed by OP.  Consequently, set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2018 passed in C.C.No.147/2016 and remand the matter back to forum below to re-examine as observed in the order affording opportunity to both parties and decide the matter as early as possible within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
6. Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to forum below for needful.

JUDICIAL MEMBER

MEMBER

 

CV*