BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.877 OF 2011
Between:
M/s Tata Capital Ltd.,
Regd.Off: at Mumbai inter alia its
Branch office P.No.3 to 6, Auto Plaza,
Opp Times of India, Road No.3, Manager, K.Amarnadh Rao
S/o Venkaeshwar Rao K, age 36 years,
Mrs Chinnam Swathi W/o Ratna Kishore
age 36 years, Occ: Housewife
r/o H.No.212, Road No.7, Goutham Nagar
Film Nagar, Hyderabad
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE THIRTY FIRST
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
1. `1,00,000/- and costs.
2. `18,018/- for 60 months ending on 8.06.2013.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
i) Whether the repossession of the vehicle by the appellant-company is justified?
ii) Whether the respondent is entitled to any amount from the appellant?
iii) To what relief?
10. `7,92,000/- from the appellant-company. The cost of the vehicle and the margin money contributed by the respondent are evident from loan sanction letter and statement of account. It is not disputed that the loan amount is repayable in EMIs @`18,018/- over a period of 60 months ending on 8.06.2013.
11. `2,46,718/-as seen from the statement of account.
12.
13.
14.
15. `2,46,718/-. The appellant-company`7,23,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondent challenged the sale of the vehicle for an unreasonable consideration. The cost `9,32,000/- -`90,000/- =`8,42,000/-. `8,42,000/- can not be asserted for various reasons such as the condition of the vehicle as on the date of sale which again depends upon several factors such as the vehicle meeting with accident if any, the driving habits of the driver, the road condition and maintenance of the vehicle etc.
16. `2,00,000/- in favour of the respondent. `2,46,718/-. `7,92,000/- and the vehicle was sold for`7,23,000/-.
17.
18. `2,00,000/- to`50,000/- and confirming the rest of the order.
KMK*
