THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
APPEAL NO.505/2015
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The Branch Manager,
TVS Credit Service Ltd,
TVS Two Wheeler Show Room,
New Santhe Maidana
Chitradurga,
… Appellant/s
2. The Branch Manager,
TVS Credit Service Ltd,
16/13/31, II floor,
Vishnu Priya Tower,
MKK Road, Rama Mohana Puram,
Maruthi Extension,
Srirampuram, Bengaluru-560 021
3. The Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office,
TVS Credit Service Ltd,
Jayalakshmi Estate,
29 Haddows Road, Chennai-500 006
(By Sri.Mohan Malge, Advocate)
V/s
Sri.Manjunatha.V,
S/o Veerabhadrappa,
Aged about 36 years, … Respondent/s
Occ: Agriculturist
R/at Jampayyakote village,
Chitradurga taluk & District
(By Sri.K.V.Mahesh, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.57/2014 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Chitradurga which directed this Appellant/ Opposite Party to accept an EMI amount of Rs.5,562/- with interest and to pay interest of 6% from the date of seizer and also directed to refund an amount of Rs.52,702/- to the complainant with 6% interest, if they fail to collect the EMI.
The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant availed a loan for purchase of the bike, due to nonpayment of the said EMIs, this appellant seized the vehicle and sold it in the public auction. The proceeding of the said sale was adjusted to the loan and remaining amount was paid to the complainant/respondent, whereas the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency of service and prayed for payment of EMI to the vehicle. The District Consumer Commission after trial allowed the complaint without any basis. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission.
2. Heard the arguments
3. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, we noticed that the complainant availed a loan to the tune of Rs.46,240/- towards the purchase of the vehicle and agreed to pay EMI of Rs.5,562/- every month but the complainant/respondent had not paid regular EMI for which this appellant had issued a demand notice for payment of the due EMI along with other charges amounting to Rs.12,249/. After receipt of the demand notice the complainant not came forward to pay the said EMI in order to regularize the loan. Having no option this appellant had seized the vehicle on 26-2-2012 and sold the vehicle in public auction in order to adjust the loan amount. Whereas the complainant instead of paying the due amount had preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging that the Opposite Parties have not receiving the EMI though he ready to pay the EMI amount of Rs.5,562/-.
4. The District Consumer Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay the above said amount. The order passed by the District Consumer Commission lacks legality as because it is clear admission made by the complainant that he is default in paying the EMI regularly. It is an admitted fact that the demand notice issued by this appellant for payment of Rs.12,249/-, the complainant instead of paying the said amount has chosen to file a complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency of service. The District Consumer Commission made an error in allowing the complaint and protecting the defaulter. We are of the opinion that the Consumer Commissions are established for purpose of protecting consumers and not defaulter. There is clear violation on the part of the complainant/respondent in not paying the regular EMI to the Opposite Parties/Appellant. We notice that the vehicle was sold in the public auction proceeding and adjusted to the loan account and remaining amount paid to the complainant when as such being the case we found there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. The order passed by the District Consumer Commission is infructuous as because as on the date of order the vehicle was all ready sold and loan amount was adjusted. Hence the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is required to be set aside. Accordingly the appeal allowed and the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
