OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.703 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD

Between

M.Naveen Kumar S/o M.Yadaiah
aged about 26 years, Occ; Pvt. Employee
R/o 16-1-179, Saidabad, Hyderabad-059

Appellant/complainant

        A N D

1.     M/s Centurion Bank o Punjab Ltd.,
        Rep. by its authorized signatory
        94, Minerva Complex, F-416, IV Floor
        Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad-003

2.     M/s Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited
        rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director
        regd. Off: Shanta Durga Niwas, M.G.Road
        Panaji, Goa-001

3.     M/s Citi Sales
        rep. by its Proprietor
        3-4-432, YMCA X Roads
        Narayanaguda, Hyderabad-029

                                                        Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellants                    Sri Y.V.Narasimhacharyulu

Counsel for the Respondents        No.1 &2     Sri B.S.Prasad

Counsel for the Respondent No.3           Sri M.Nagaraju

QUORUM:         SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

&

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                WEDNESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

                                            TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                       ***

1.     The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.     The brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of the appeal are that the complainant purchased TVS Centra from opposite party no.3 vide invoice no.071 dated 15.4.2004 for the consideration of `38,390/- out of which he had paid down payment of  `9,230/- vide receipt no.074 dated 15.4.2004 and the balance amount of  `36,600/- was availed as vehicle loan from the opposite party no.1 under hire purchase agreement no.2020B34108561 whereunder the vehicle was hypothecated in favour of the opposite party no.1.  The loan amount was to be repaid in 34 months on EMI of  `1410.  The complainant has submitted that he has paid  `38,840/-.  The opposite party had shown in the statement of account dated 16.4.2007 that the amount due is  `12,330/- which the complainant disputed stating that only an amount of  `6440/- is due from him.  The opposite party no.1 repossessed the vehicle which according to the complainant was done without giving any prior notice.  The opposite party no.1 issued letter dated 24.4.2007 stating that the complainant is due of  `19,944/- and if the amount was not paid within 7 days therefrom the vehicle was threatened to be disposed of to clear the liabilities of the complainant. 

3.     The complainant got issued notice through his counsel on 11.5.2007 for which the opposite parties sent reply on 22.5.2007 and 25.5.2007 denying the seizure of the vehicle without prior intimation. 

4.     The opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed counter stating that the balance payable by the complainant under his loan account of  `19,944/- dated 24.4.2007 which include over due principal, penalty on overdue interest, cheque bouncing charges, repossession charges and godown charges.  It was submitted that the opposite party no.1 had repossessed the vehicle from the complainant as per the conditions mentioned in the loan agreement as the complainant deliberately defaulted in repayment of loan amount inspite of repeated request and demand made by the opposite party no.1.  As the complainant has not paid the balance amount in time, the opposite party no.1 seized and sold the vehicle to realize the balance due from the complainant.  The opposite party no.1 issued presale notice dated 24.4.2007 requesting the complainant to clear the dues of  `19,944/- and as the complainant has not come forward to clear the balance loan amount, the opposite party no.1 sold the vehicle on 30.5.2007 in auction for an amount of  `10,500/- and the complainant had to pay the balance amount towards loss on sale of the vehicle. 

5.     The complainant has filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.  On behalf of the opposite parties Exs.B1 to B4 had been marked.

6.     The District Forum had dismissed the complaint on the premise that the cheques issued by the complainant to the opposite parties were bounced on account of insufficient funds in his account and that the complainant defaulted in making payment of the balance instalments of  `19,944/- as also that the complainant had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the opposite parties. 

7.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed the appeal contending that the seizure of the vehicle without any prior notice is illegal and that the complainant had not signed on any papers or documents to show that he had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party no.1.

8.     The points for consideration are:

1)                Whether the opposite party no.1 arbitrarily repossessed the vehicle from the complainant?

2)                Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

3)                To what relief?

9.     POINTS NO.1 AND 2  The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased the TVS Centra bike from the opposite party no.3 on 15.4.2004 for a sale consideration of  `38,390/-.  The complainant has paid  `9,230/- towards down payment on 15.4.2004 evidenced by receipt dated 15.4.2004.  The opposite party no.1 sanctioned loan amount of  `36,600/- under hire purchase agreement whereunder the amount was repayable at EMI of  `1410/-.  The complainant has paid an amount of  `36,000/- as seen by the statement of account dated 16.4.2007 which also shows that he is due an amount of  `12,332/-.

10.    The complainant has disputed the balance to be paid  `12,332/-.  According to him the amount due is only  `6,440/- which he stated to have expressed his readiness to pay to the opposite party no.1.  The opposite party no.1 repossessed the vehicle from the complainant on 23.4.2007.  The notice dated 24.4.2007 issued by the opposite party no.1 shows that the complainant has  voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party on 23.4.2007.  The complainant has disputed this fact mentioned in the notice 24.4.2007.  In the notice dated 11.5.2007 the complainant has stated that he has paid 28 installments without any interruption and the same was stated to be evident by the statement of account dated 16.4.2007.  A perusal of the statement of the account shows that the net amount receivable from the complainant is  `12,332/-.  The complainant has disputed this amount by stating that he has to pay only  `8,460/- pertaining to four instalments and even before payment of the amount his vehicle was seized by the men of the opposite party no.1. 

11.    The complainant had sought for refund of  `36,600/- with interest and costs.  In reply to the notice, the opposite parties had addressed letter dated 25.5.2007 stating that the complainant had committed defaults in remitting the instalments which resulted over dues and attracted the incidental charges on account of dishonour of the cheques issued by him in discharge of the loan amount.  The complainant was requested to pay the balance amount of  `19,944/- along with subsequent interest as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The complainant has not paid the amount as a result of which the opposite party no.1 has sold the vehicle for an amount of  `10,500/-in auction stated to have been conducted  on 30.5.2007. 

12.    Admittedly, the opposite party no.1 has sold the vehicle after issuing the notice to the complainant in terms of the loan agreement, the opposite party no.1 is empowered to repossess the vehicle in case the complainant had committed default in repayment of the balance instalments.  The complainant has not disputed the auction or the procedure the opposite party no.1 adopted for the sale of the vehicle.  What all the complainant disputes is the seizure of the vehicle without issuing any notice and the amount demanded by the opposite party no.1 towards the balance instalment.  The statement of account as relied upon by the complainant and issued on 16.4.2007 and 24.4.2007 goes to show that he is due an amount of  `12,332/- and  `.19,944/- respectively by the dates mentioned therein.

 13.   When the complainant failed to show the discrepancy in the amount due as demanded by the opposite party no.1, his contention that he is liable to pay only an amount of  `6,440/- is not sustainable in the light of the documents i.e., statement of account and reply notice issued by the opposite party no.1.  In terms of loan cum hypothecation agreement, the opposite party no.1 has been given authority to repossess the vehicle on default committed by the complainant.  The decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, in “ Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited Vs Vijayalakshmi” 2007(3) CPR 191 (NC) relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the case as the case on hand the opposite party no.1 has not exercised any force at the time of repossession of the vehicle.   For the reasons mentioned above we are of the opinion that the opposite parties had not committed any deficiency in service while repossessing the vehicle 23.4.2007 and subsequently putting it to sale in auction held on 30.5.2007.  The appeal is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed.

14.    In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.  No costs.

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                     Dt.10.11.2010

KMK*