BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 423/2005Hyderabad.
&
F.A. 425/2005Hyderabad.
Between:
S. Sreenivasulu
S/o. Janaiah, Age: 35 years
Business, Presently
R/o. H. No. 10-6-178/2
Bhuranpura Khammam 1) M/s. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd.,
6-3-1109/1/p/202, 2ndSomajiguda,Rajbhavan Road
Hyderabad-500 082
Rep. by its Managing Director
2)
Consumer Finance Division
Opp. AIR,Bandar Road
Vijayawada.Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellants:
Counsel for the Respondent:
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
MONDAY, THIS THE
ORAL ORDER:
***
Hyderabad
th thth
and the
While so the financer again seized the vehicle without any notice
he paid Rs. 8,000/- by way of cash on
India. they were liable to pay Rs. 66,991/- per month.
The financier filed counter in C.D. 214/2003. However, by virtue of interim order in I.A. No. 141/2003
Both the matters were clubbed together. evidence on behalf of appellant/complainant in F.A. No. 423/2005 against C.D. 45/2002.
The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred appeal F.A. No. 423/2005 against the order C.D. 45/2002 and F.A. No. 425/2005 against
th
thth While ordering delivery of the vehicle, the Dist. Forum directed the complainant to pay Rs. 1,13,950/-
Despite
illegal possession of the vehicle. were not paid by due date.
1. 3. 2004.
The question of granting compensation would depend upon the determination whether the However,
The Transfer of Property Act provided an elaborate procedure for termination of the hire purchase agreement. It also provided that notice is to be given and, in some cases, instituting a suit or an application before the Court before taking possession. But, it nowhere provided taking of the possession by use of force.
16.Similarly, Section 69 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would have also no bearing with regard to contract entered into between the complainant and the petitioner.
19 © :
(i)
(ii)
Finance companies are restrained from stopping the running vehicles on the roads and forcibly pulling out the driver and take possession of the vehicle against all provisions of law.”
20.Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the complainant referred to the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
“In a loan agreement for financing goods on hypothecated basis the creditor cannot forcibly repossess the hypothecated item, though he can enforce the security through the Court. If the agreement is held to be a loan agreement and rights of the creditor are held to be those of a hypothecatee, rights of the parties under the agreement would be different. A hypothecatee, cannot take possession of the security without intervention of the Court, though he has a right to take possession or to sell the hypothecated property though Court or to give notice to the hypothecator to enforce the security.
The finding that the hypothecatee cannot be permitted to take over the hypothecated goods under repossession clause, without intervention of the Court is also supported by events which have been taken cognizance of by the Legislature, which shows that the public policy requires safeguards to be provided against arbitrary repossession clauses.”
23. agreement may give right to take possession of the vehicle, money lenders/financial institution/banks have no power to take possession by use of force and have to follow the statutory remedy which may be available under the law.
24.May be that
Coming to the facts, admittedly, Undoubtedly, issued for the second time even, when the possession of the vehicle was taken.
Learned counsel for the respondent relied a decision of this Commission
The relief granted by the Dist. Forum Time for compliance four weeks.
