SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that he was purchased a motor cycle bearing registration number KL- 4/U – 766 by taking loan from the opposite party. The period for the repayment of the loan is 36 months and each month has an installment. The monthly installment is of Rs.1175/-. He has been paying the installments regularly up to May 2007. Thereafter four installments were in due. The opposite party with aid of goondas forcibly seized the vehicle and sold without issuing a notice. The complainant has paid Rs.18800/- towards the repayment of the loan. But the opposite party without considering these facts illegally sold the vehicle. Hence there is a deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite party. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party represented through a counsel on 11.12.2007 and 15.2.2008. But they were not filed vakalath or version hence the opposite party was set exparte on 12.3.2008. Thereafter complainant filed proof affidavit and 7 documents. Documents filed by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. <br /> 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, Forum framed following issue:- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. <br /> 4. Ext,A4 document is a letter dated 19.10.2007 in which the opposite party sated that vehicle No.KL-4/U-766 was taken into their custody because of the non payment of dues. As per the averments in the complaint the complainant stated that the said vehicle was seized by the opposite party in the month of October, 2007. The averments in the complaint and the contents in the Ext.A4 letter coincides with each other. That means they were seized the vehicle in October, 2007. This letter also indicates that they were taken the vehicle in their custody without giving an intimation or without the consent of the complainant. That is why they issued a letter Ext.A4. Giving a loan and its repayment is a contract. If any one of the party violates the terms and condition of the contract and in such circumstance the affected party can seek for their damages only through legal measures. Here the opposite party taken the vehicle without the consent of the complainant and that is too in a forcible manner. This is against the law. Thereafter they sold the vehicle without intimating the complainant with regard to the date of auction. In this context the finding of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the decision in Citycorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalakshmi reported in III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC) held that “it is to be stated that in this auction the customer whose vehicle is seized has no voice or roll to play. In any case, if an opportunity is given to the consumer, when his vehicle is likely to be sold at a particular price and option should be given to him to purchase the vehicle at the said price, then it is a transparent procedure. The procedure which is stated in the conduct book may appear to be attractive, but in practice it is not followed and causes loss to the consumer, because in many cases the bidders purchase vehicle at a throw-away price”. The National Commission also states that if the vehicle is sold, the damages or compensation is the only relief which can be granted to the complainant.<br /> 5. In the same decision the Hon’ble National Commission held in paragraph 45 “in case when the vehicle was repossessed by use of force and thereafter, sold without informing the complaint, in our view it would be unjust to direct the consumer to pay the balance amount, as alleged by the financier to be outstanding. If such a relief is given to the money lender-financier, it would be unjust enrichment to the money lender and against equity. That question may arise for consideration only if the complainant willingly surrenders the vehicle for sale and for recovery of the outstanding amount”. In another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in ABN AMRO Bank Vs. Sangeet Srivasathava reported in II (2007) CPJ 269 (NC), the National Commission held that the margin money given by the purchaser of the vehicle has to be refunded by the financier. In the present case complainant has given Rs.8000/- as margin money for the said loan transaction. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in our view, there the vehicle is forcefully seized and sold by the money lender or Banker it would be just and proper to award a reasonable compensation to the complainant.<br /> 6. Hence this petition is allowed and we direct the opposite party to return back Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) as the margin money collected by the Banker from the complainant and considering the facts, and the installments paid by the complainant we direct the opposite to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation. There is no order on cost.<br /> In the result complaint allowed. <br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH<br /> <br /> Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI <br /> <br /> APPENDIX:-<br /> <br /> Evidence of the complainant:-<br /> Ext.A1 - Certificate of Registration (Photo copy)<br /> Ext.A2 - Pass Book (Photo copy)<br /> Ext.A3 - Vehicle Invoice<br /> Ext.A4 - Letter dated 19.10.2007 (Photo copy)<br /> Ext.A5 - Copy of Reply notice<br /> Ext.A6 - Postal receipt<br /> <br /> Ext.A7 - Acknowledgement card<br /> Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil<br />