Maharashtra

Nagpur

CC/559/2021

KAMLAKAR GHANSHYAM BAGDE - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER, BERAR FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NAGPUR
New Administrative Building
5th Floor, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440 001
0712-2548522
 
Complaint Case No. CC/559/2021
( Date of Filing : 29 Sep 2021 )
 
1. KAMLAKAR GHANSHYAM BAGDE
R/O. WARD NO.5, NARKHED, NAGPUR-441304
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MANAGER, BERAR FINANCE LTD.
OFF.AT, ASHVINI TOWER, MEHADIA CHOWK, DHANTOLI, NAGPUR
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
2. MANAGER, BERAR FINANCE LTD.
R/O. GALPURA, KATOL, NAGPUR
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. ATUL D. ALSI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. CHANDRIKA K. BAIS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH R. AJANE MEMBER
 
PRESENT:SELF, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 20 Mar 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Passed by Shri Atul D. Alsi, Hon’ble President 

1.         The complainant filed complaint case against illegal seizer of complainants two wheeler motorcycle and sold in auction  thereby claiming  cost of vehicle of Rs.60,000/- alongwith cost of Rs.10,000/- . 

 The story in short is as under,

2.         The complainant purchased motorcycle bearing No. MH-40 BB-0949, Passion PRO-3-S, on 14.10.2016 which was financed from O.P.No.1 amounted Rs.40,000/- and for the repayment of Rs.2083/- in 24 monthly instalment from dated 1.11.2016 to 31.8.2018.   The complainant further submitted that the complainant deposited the instalments regularly with O.P.No.1 and sometimes with O.P.No.2 the agent of O.P.No.1 for the period of 22 months. But the O.P.No.1 has illegally and without any intimation seized the complainant vehicle after 12 months from the completion of repayment period of loan amount.  The O.P.No.1 has failed to issue the statement of loan account as and when demanded.  After seizer of vehicle on dated 28.12.2019 the O.P.No.1 has issued legal notice to asking for payment of Rs. 33,970/- towards arrears of loan account and also on dated 4.3.2020 to pay Rs.38,923/- and on dated 23.10.2020 Rs.45,602/-.  Therefore after due payment of loan instalments the seizer of vehicle and demand of outstanding amount form O.P.No.1 does amount to deficiency in service and therefore the present complaint is filed.

3.         O.P.No.1 and 2 field their reply and denied allegation against them and submitted that as per loan application the O.P.No.1 has sanctioned Rs.40,000/- and the complainant purchased motorcycle bearing No. MH-40-BB-0949 against the repayment of monthly install Rs.2,083/- for the period of 24 months i.e. from dated 25.10.2016.  The complainant paid 15 instalment but the instalment were not paid on due dates.  The O.P.No.1 has issued the letter on dated 13.11.2018, 31.10.2018 and 26.12.2019 to pay the outstanding loan amount and there after intimation of seizer the vehicle was seized. The complainant was in arrears of loan amount of Rs.18,393/- with penal charges.  The O.P.No.1 has issued statement of loan account to the complainant from time to time for non-payment of arrears of loan amount. The complainant vehicle was sold on dated 15.1.2021 against the price of Rs.33,000/- after due process of law, hence there is no deficiency in services rendered by opposite party therefore the complaint is deserved to be dismissed with cost.

 

 REASONING

5.         The O.P.No.1 has sanctioned  Rs.40,000/- as a loan and amount to purchase two-wheeler as per agreement of loan executed on dated 25.10.2016 to be repaid within a period of 24 of monthly instalment of Rs.2084/-. The complainant was in arrears of loan amount therefore the O.P.No.1 has issued notices for payment of arrears of loan amount on dated 13.11.2018 and thereafter intimation of seize the vehicle on dated 26.12.2019 but even after the receipt of notices of arrears of loan amount and intimation to seize the vehicle the complainant could not pay the loan amount, hence complainant vehicle was sold by O.P.No.1 which was seized as per surrender report dated 26.12.019 filed on record as document no. 4 and 5 by O.P.No.1. Hence there is no unlawful seizer and sale of vehicle.  The O.P.No.1 has right to recover the outstanding loan amount. Therefore there is no deficiency on the part of O.P.No.1 and 2 in seizure and sale of vehicle hence the case is dismissed. Therefore following order.

 

ORDER

i. Complaint dismissed.

ii. No order as to costs.

iii. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. ATUL D. ALSI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. CHANDRIKA K. BAIS]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH R. AJANE]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.