A-322/2023

5-3-2024

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Heard from appellant.

2. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that, the vehicle of the complainant was seized for non-payment of the EMI installments, the complainant/respondent had only paid the first installment of Rs.84,000/-. After payment of the said first installment, he had not paid the balance EMIs to the OP/appellant towards the loan. Having no option, this appellant had repossessed the vehicle, after issuance of due demand notice, even in spite of receipt of the demand notice also, the complainant did not came forward to regularized the loan amount. Subsequently, they have issued resale notice, even after receipt of the said also, the appellant not regularized the loan amount. Having no option, this appellant sold the vehicle in public auction for recovery of the loan amount, accordingly the vehicle was sold for an amount of Rs.3,61,000/-. Whereas the complainant is due of Rs.4,02,229/- and still he is liable to pay the balance amount. The complainant in order to avoid the said payment had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and claimed for compensation and also to return the Tractor. The District Commission without considering the default on the side of the complainant and defence taken by this appellant had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay Rs.1,90,410/- without any reason. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. In fact, the complainant is still liable to pay outstanding due towards the loan amount. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.      

3. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, the District Commission had noticed that, the vehicle was sold by this appellant for an amount of Rs.3,61,000/- and also noticed the balance amount payable as Rs.3,69,590/- whereas the notice issued to the respondent reflects is in due of Rs.4,35,627/- and considered that the value of the vehicle is Rs.5,60,000/-  and deducted the sale proceeds to the tune of Rs.3,61,000/- and directed the balance amount of Rs.1,99,000/- + Rs.8,590/- to be payable by this appellant. The order passed by the District Commission lacks legality. The District Commission ought not to take the value of the vehicle for the purpose of public auction, here the public auction was held by this appellant and highest bidder was taken the vehicle for an amount of Rs.3,61,000/-the balance amount payable by the complainant is Rs.4,35,627/-, whereas the vehicle was sold to Rs.3,61,000/-, the complainant still in due of payment of the balance loan amount.

4. The complainant being a defaulter and no valid grounds to urge for claiming the balance amount. In spite of issuance of the due notice, he had failed to regularize the loan amount. It is a clear case of negligence on the part of the complainant/respondent himself in not paying the loan installments. The terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement are binding on the both parties. We noticed this appellant had as per the terms and conditions of Hypothecation agreement has repossessed the vehicle for default and sold it, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of this appellant in selling the vehicle for recovery of the loan amount. The District Commission utterly failed to appreciate the negligence on the part of the complainant himself. As such the order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law and hence the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed. 

The impugned order 13.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koppal in CC.No.41/2021 is set-aside.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer 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