IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) – President<br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> <br /> CC 268/09 DATED 12.10.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Krishna S/o late Lakkaiah, Residence at # 2277, Upparageri, Piriyapatna Town, Mysore District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. R.K., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Manager/Secretary, TATA Motors Finance, Ramvilas Road, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. H.S.K., Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 24.07.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 14.08.2009<br /> Date of order : 12.10.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 28 Days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant has filed the complaint seeking a direction to the opposite party to return the seized car and further, permit the complainant to pay the balance amount in installments and so also to direct the opposite party to return the additional 40 cheques and cancel the additional interest etc.,.<br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged in the complaint, that the complainant had purchased car bearing No:KA 12-N-4039 borrowing loan of Rs. 3,25,000/- from the opposite party. Towards repayment of the loan, the complainant had handed over 30 cheques to the opposite party. As per the agreement the opposite party did not present the cheques to the bank for encashment. On 02.11.2007 at a time 4 cheques were presented to the bank for encashment. Remaining cheques were not presented to the bank for encashment. Later the opposite party forcibly obtained 48 cheques of I.C.I.C.I Bank, Kushal Nagar Branch. Despite the request the opposite party has not delivered the cheques. The opposite party presented said all cheques at a time and got them bounced. The opposite party without notice seized the car on 24.02.2009. Already the complainant paid sum of Rs.64,000/- to the opposite party. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party has filed objections denying almost all the material allegations and it is contended that the complainant was irregular in payment of the installments and the opposite party after due service of the notice dated 05.08.2008, re-possessed the vehicle and sold the same etc.,. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. For both the parties no affidavits are filed. When matter for posted for argument finally, both the parties were absent. We have perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative <br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. POINT NO.1:- At the outset to prove the facts alleged in the complaint no evidence for the complainant by way of affidavit is adduced. The complainant has contended that, without notice the opposite party has seized the vehicle and hence, the complainant has prayed a direction to opposite party to deliver back the said vehicle. But, on the other hand the opposite party has contended that after due service of notice it repossessed the vehicle and has sold it in auction. Copy of notice is produced and it is signed by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant contended that, the opposite party presented the cheques at a time and got them bounced. On the other hand, the opposite party contended that the complainant was irregular in payment of the installments. To substantiate the fact that the complainant paid the installments regularly, there is no evidence.<br /> <br /> 9. As noted above, the complainant has sought possession of the vehicle but prima-fascia, it is found that the opposite party has already sold it. As regards other claim made by the complainant, there is no sufficient or evidence is in record.<br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts and material on record in our opinion the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency as alleged. Also the complainant has failed to prove that he is entitled to the reliefs sought. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 negative. <br /> <br /> 11. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost. <br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to the party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 12th October 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V. Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar. J)<br /> Member<br /> <br />