By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant was a loanee of Rs.3,92,000/- in purchase of the vehicle bearing No. KL 12C 2756 and entered into agreement for the repayment of EMI in 60 instalments. The Complainant remitted around Rs.2,00,000/- towards the EMI till 20/05/2008. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties seized the vehicle under pretext of instalments due. The Complainant filed a petition before Meenangady Police when the vehicle found to be missing. Later the Complainant was known that the vehicle was seized by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The Complainant was ready to clear the instalments due and to take back the vehicle which was the sole source of the Complainants livelihood. How ever the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties sold the vehicle without any information to the Complainant. Apart from that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties demanded Rs.53,391.49 after unlawful selling of the vehicle. The seizing and selling of the vehicle without any intimation to the Complainant is a deficiency in service. More over the demands of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party of Rs.53,391.49 towards the shortage of the clearance of the loan is absolutely deficiency in service.

2. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the Complainant Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 20.5.2008 till realization of the amount and Rs.50,000/- to be given to the Complainant towards compensation.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed version. The 3^rd Opposite Party is declared exparte. The Complainant availed a loan for the purchase of a vehicle having registration No.KL 12C 2756 and entered into an agreement with Tata Motors had been under the terms of dealing. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 denied the re-possession of the vehicle as an act in contravention of the terms agreed. The question of return of the vehicle to the Complainant does not arise since there was no re-possession of the vehicle by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has not ever fringed the legal right of the Complainant. The complaint is devoid of any merit it is to be dismissed with cost.

4. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service in the dealing of Opposite Party with the Complainant.

2. Relief and cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit. The 3^rd Opposite Party is declared exparte. The documents in this case consists of Ext.A1 to A10 series. The complaint filed is against the seizing of the vehicle financed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. More over after disposal of the vehicle by the Opposite Parties they demanded Rs.53,391/- the amount in their terms found in short of clearing liability. The purchase of the vehicle type Tata 207 was under the finance of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The loanee had the down payment of Rs.44,217/- at the time of purchase. The balance amount was to be remitted in equated monthly instalments of 60 in number consisting of Rs.8,500/- each. The repayment schedule ends with total liability Rs.5,10,160/-. The last payment date will be on 02.10.2010. The Complainant was informed the seizing of the vehicle having registration No.KL 12C 2756 in the letter dated 26.05.2008. The contention of the Opposite Parties are that the repossession of the vehicle was not as alleged by seizing instead it was surrendered. The notice issued from 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties on 05.03.2009, further details that the vehicle was repossessed as a result of continuous default of EMIs even after repeated request. The lawyer notice sent by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties demanded Rs.2,38,801/- for closing of the liability within a period of 7 days. Subsequently the Complainant was informed of the sale of vehicle and subsequently Rs.53,391.49 was demanded to make good the shortage of the liability due from the Complainant. The documents produced further shows that the Opposite Party had not informed the Complainant in advance. The sale of the vehicle and the price at which the vehicle was sold in contrary not informed the Complaianant. The intimation given to the Complainant was demanding to compensate the amount that was in shortage of closing the liability. The Opposite Parties had not produced any documents in support of their contentions, instead the total denial of the entire aspect, except the transaction of financing the vehicle No.KL 12C 2756. According to the Complainant around Rs.2,00,000/- were remitted towards the loan amount. Any how as per the payment chart the liability has to be closed on 02.10.2010. The averment in version of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party is cryptic on the total equated monthly instalments which were in due when the vehicle was seized. The seized vehicle was sold at the desire of the Opposite Party without informing the Complainant the price at which the vehicle was sold. In Tata Motors Ltd V/S Indrasen Choubey and Others (CTJ 2009 P-840). The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hled that the seizing of the vehicle by the money lenders and selling it without any information to the loanee is an unjust enrichment to the money lender and against equity. In a society where rule of law prevails such an act cannot be considered good for a civilized society. The seizing of the vehicle No. KL 12C 2756 by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties not in compliance with the rule of law is absolutely a deficiency in service.

6. The sale price of the vehicle was not informed to the Complainant. The amount Rs.53,391/- demanded towards the clearance of the liability by the Opposite Parties are unjust and unreasonable. Since the sale of the vehicle was not in connivance and concurrence of the Complainant. We are in the opinion that the sum of Rs.53,391/- demanded by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties not liable to be paid by the Complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Complainant is absolved from any liability of the loan amount in the purchase of the vehicle No.KL 12C 2756 financed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are also directed to give Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the Complainant towards the cost of this complaint. This is to be complied by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th June 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Biju Poulose Driver.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.(3 sheets) Copy of Letter. dt:14.11.2005.

A2. Copy of Letter. dt:26.05.2008.

A3. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:05.03.2009.

A4. Copy of Reply Notice. dt:08.04.2008.

A5. Copy of Loan Demand Notice. dt:30.07.2009.

A6 series(12 in numbers) Receipts.

A7. Copy of Driving Licence.

A8. Copy of Notice. dt:07.08.2009.

A9. Copy of Letter. dt:26.05.2008.

A10 series ( 2 numbers) Receipt.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.