Kerala

StateCommission

A/09/55

hdfc bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

mridula mohandas - Opp.Party(s)

t.l.sreeram

25 Mar 2009

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/09/55

hdfc bank
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

mridula mohandas
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN 3. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

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.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                    VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
           APPEAL:55/2009
                             JUDGMENT DATED:25..03..2009
 
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT
 
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                : MEMBER
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                              : MEMBER
The Regional Manager,
HDFC, KalliyathBuilding,                                      : APPELLANT
Palace Road, Thrissur-1.
 
(By Adv:M/s V.S. Sunilkumar & T.L.Sreeram)
 
                   V.
Mridula Mohandas,
W/o Palliyil Mohandas,                                          : RESPONDENT
Punkunnam, Thrissur.
 
                                      JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
The appellant is the opposite party in CC:286/06 which was decided exparte vide order CC:286/06 in the file of the CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant/opposite party has been directed not to forceably seize the vehicle and also to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards cost.
2. The case of the complainant is that she has paid all the instalments of the loan availed.  The total amount comes to Rs.3,59,150/-.  According to the opposite party/appellant is claiming an amount of Rs.3,89,565/- and they are threatening to seize the vehicle.
3. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.P1. We find the legal position that the appellant is not entitled to forceably seize the vehicle cannot be disputed. It is submitted that the appellant could not contest the matter on account of the delay in processing at their office. They had filed application to setaside exparte order and the same was dismissed.
4. The counsel has sought for a direction that amount allegedly due to them may not be restrained from collecting on account of the present order. In the circumstances it is clarified that the appellant would be entitled to proceed legally to collect the amount if any due to them and this order will not be a bar for the same. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.   The order of the Forum directing not to forceably seize the vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.500/- is sustained.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
 
          JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
 
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER
VL.                                                    M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA