BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.235
Between:
1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,
3rd 18, Homi Mody Street Fort,
Mumbai-001 and 2nd Campus, Off:Pokharan Road 2,
Thane (West) -607
2. Tata Motors Finance Limited
D.No.8-1-7, Akruthi Apartments
Balaji Nagar, Waltair Main Road
Visakhapatnam
Mr.G.Jagadeeswara Rao R/o Main Road, Govada Village,
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. `4,00,000/- towards compensation.
2. `7,50,000/- from the appellant and entered into agreement with the appellant `15,000/-from the respondent towards documentation charges and the appellant had not received receipt for the amount. The respondent incurred an amount of`2,59,500/- for purchasing accessories of the vehicle besides a sum of`2,50,000/- towards body building and`25,000/- towards laying of electricity lines and cabin ceiling.
3. `7,50,000/- and the respondent paid a sum of`8,89,185/-.
4. `7,06,276/- towards documentation charges, body building of the vehicle and for purchasing of its accessories. The appellant illegally collected an amount of`56,707/- towards bank charges, retainer charges repossession charges etc., and the appellant made illegal demand for the amount of`1,27,994/- towards insurance premium, ODC charges, interest and PMT charges. The appellant repossessed and sold the vehicle without issuing prior notice to the respondent as a result of which the respondent suffered mental tension and blood pressure which resulted in his hospitalization. Hence, the complaint.
5.
6. `400/- totaling`10.400/- and due to default committed by the respondent, the appellant sent its agents/officers to the residence of the respondent which was resulted in retainer charges of Rs.3,100/- and`6,818/-. The appellant incurred legal expenses of`2,880/-,repossession charges of`21,350/- and insurance premium of`12,159/-. As on 5.04.2011 the appellant incurred total amount of`56,707/-. The complaint is false and frivolous and the appellant prayed for its dismissal.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. `7,50,000/- by the appellant to the respondent on 14.12.2006 is not disputed. The respondent contended that he paid amount more than what was due whereas the appellant submits that the respondent fell short of installments due and his default in payment of installments amount which resulted in repossession of the vehicle for four times. Apart from the amount due or the amount paid, the parties are at dispute in the manner in which the vehicle was repossessed and sold by the appellant.
13.
14.
15.
9(a)
18(a)
16.
17.
18. `4,60,000/-. `7,06,000/- stated to have been incurred by the respondent for body building and other accessories of the vehicle as also the District Forum held that calculating depreciation at 5% per annum the value of the vehicle would be`12 lakh and directed the appellant to pay the same amount to respondent.
19. `7,06,000/- said to have been incurred by the respondent would form part of value of the vehicle. `12 lakhs. `12 lakhs. `1,00,000/ due from the respondent to the appellant, the net amount the appellant liable to pay to the respondent on all counts is`4 lakhs. Accordingly the amount awarded by the District Forum is liable to be modified. `50,000/- is set aside.
20. `4 lakh with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.12.2010 till payment together with costs of`5,000/-.
కె.ఎం.కె*
