Date of filing : 21.05.2010<br /> Date of Order: 04.11.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> <br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1177 OF 2010<br /> <br /> Mr. P.Mohan,<br /> S/o sri H.M. Puttaiah,<br /> R/at No.9, Shobha Apartment,<br /> 60 Feet Road, KEB Layout,<br /> M.R.Garden,<br /> Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore-94. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,<br /> Pune Road, Akurdi,<br /> PUNE-411035.<br /> <br /> 2.M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,<br /> “Anugraha’, No.29, 12th Cross,<br /> Swimming Pool Extension,<br /> P.G.Halli Main Road,<br /> Sudheendranagar, <br /> Malleswaram, Bangalore-3.<br /> Rep. by its Authorised Sigatory.<br /> <br /> 3.M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,<br /> No.10/2, Kasthurba Road,<br /> Near Kivaraj Motors,<br /> Bangalore-1.<br /> Rep. by its Authorised Signatory. Opposite parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant had purchased Bajaj Two Wheeler. He had availed loan from the opposite parties for sum of Rs.22,000/-. The monthly EMI was being credited to the account of the opposite parties through ECS facility. On 21st November 2009, the vehicle was parked in front of complainant’s place of work, at about 5.00 pm some unknown 4 persons came to office of the complainant and demanded key of the vehicle and began to shout and scolded the complainant in filthy language, in front of officials, office bearers. The said 4 persons forcefully took the vehicle illegally and unlawfully. The complainant has lodged a police complaint on 21-11-2009. On 23-11-2009 the vehicle was brought to the police station and same was handed over to the complainant. On 19-2-2010 the complainant received No Objection Certificate from the opposite party. The complainant suffered mental agony and he could not use his vehicle for a period of 3 days he has to spent huge amount. The opposite parties have illegally had taken the vehicle without following the procedure established by law. Legal notice got issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant has filed his complaint seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony pain in suffering.<br /> 2. The opposite party had filed defense version, admitting the fact that the opposite party had taken the possession of the vehicle in question on 21-9-2009 as the complainant having arrears. The complainant had paid the amount and NOC was issued to the complainant. On 19-2-2010 after receipt of the pending EMI, the complainant received possession of the vehicle from the opposite party. On 23-11-2009 and opposite party had agreed to issue NOC to the complainant after receipt of amount Rs.2,049/-. The opposite party submitted that there was no deficiency of service on their part. Therefore, request to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. The complainant has produced documents. I have gone through the pleadings, documents and evidence. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the opposite parties that the possession of the vehicle in question of taken from the custody of the complainant on 21-11-2009. The opposite parties have not follow any procedure of law before seizing the vehicle from the custody of the complainant. Notice was not given to the complainant before seizer of the vehicle. Admittedly the complainant was paying the EMI through ECS when that is the case the seizer of vehicle suddenly without giving notice to the complainant was illegal and arbitrary. The opposite parties have not produce any documents or records to show that it is authorize to size vehicle from the custody of the complainant at their whims and fancy. No loan agreement is produced to show that the opposite party is authorized to seize the vehicle without issue notice. Even if there is a clause in the agreement giving authority to seize the vehicle in that case also the financer is not authorized to seize the vehicle without intervention of court. In this case the opposite party seized the vehicle of the complainant when the same was parked near the place of work in the presence of public and staff members. There by the complainant has been insulted before the public. The complainant naturally humiliated and insulted by the action of the opposite parties. It is also admitted case of the parties that the vehicle was handed over to the custody of the complainant on 23-11-2009 through the intervention of police. Since, the complainant had lodged a police complaint. Ultimately, the loan account was closed and NOC was given by the opposite party. The loan aspect had been closed. The only point is whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for illegal seizer of vehicle. I am of the opinion that the seizer made in this case was without any authority of law and it was illegal act, there by it amounts to a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is definitely entitled for the compensation since he has suffered mental agony, insult and humiliation. The financial institutions and banks should not harass the customers after advancing loan. There are methods to recover the dues and the financial institutions should take legal recovers for recovery of the amount. They are not allowed in law to take possession of the vehicle from the custody of the customers without following the procedure established by law. Therefore, this highhandedness on the part of the opposite parties definitely amounts to deficiency of service and the opposite parties are liable to answer for the illegal acts. On the facts and circumstances of the case granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant will meet the ends of justice. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of order the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realization. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />