A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.348 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.176 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM GUNTUR

Between:

 Smt Tubati Jyoshna W/o Venkata Rao
Occ: Housewife R/o H.No.5-471-9,
Near Sadineni Chowdariah School

Behind Rekha Narsingh Home
Chalikaluripeta Town, Guntur Dist.

Presently R/o Flat No.101, Geetha Apartment

Near Sadineni Chowdariah School

Behind Rekha Nursing Home,
Chilkarupeta Town, Guntur Dist                                                    

Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Manager, H.No.5-37-4
Sankar Vilas Centre, Main Road
4/1 Bradipet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Appellant                     

Counsel for the Respondent                  

QUORUM:  

                       SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY 

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***

1.     `11,50,000/-. `16,80,000/- whereas according to the respondent the amount repayable is`16,92,000/-.  

2.       

3.     

1)  Indusind Bank Limited Vs Mr.Milan Dutta in R.P.No.326 of 2012 decided on 21.8.2012

2)  Indian Seemless Financial Services Limited Vs Smt Ranjana S Patel in FA No.467 of 2011

3)  Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited Vs S.Vijayalaxmi R.P.No.737 of 2005 decided on 27.7.2007

4.                

“16.Before we part with the matter, we wish to make it clear that we do not appreciated the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner. The practice of hiring musclemen is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of installments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics”

5.    

11.    

“The complainant was neither given opportunity of paying all the overdue monthly installments and to repossess the vehicle nor she was permitted to take part in the sale proceeding. If she would have been informed about the sale proceeding she would have repossessed the vehicle by paying the highest bidding amount”.

12.    

6.              

“even in case of mortgaged goods subject to Hire Purchase Agreement, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the agreement also contemplates such recovery to be effected in due process of law and not by use of force.Till such time the ownership is not transferred to the owner, the hirer normally continues to be the owner of the goods, but that does not entitle him on the strength of agreement to take back possession of the vehicle by use of force. The guidlelines which had been laid down by the Reserve Bank of India as well as the appellant bank itself, Infact support and make a virtue of such conduct. If any action is taken in violation of such guidelines or the principles as laid down by this Court such an action cannot but be struck down”

The ratio laid in the aforementioned decisions can be considered only after deciding whether arbitration award passed prior to or during pendency of the complaint can oust the jurisdiction of consumer Forum.     

“The remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a grower. Rather, it is an optional remedy. He can either 

7.                       8.   In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. n the event the complainant 

                                                                                                                                                        కె.ఎం.కె