Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/47/2017

Mohammed Rafi S/o Shabbir Ahammed, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, TATA Motors - Opp.Party(s)

P.M. Umapathi,

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:20.05.2017

DISPOSED      ON:08.12.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 47/2017

 

DATED:  8^th DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT	Mohammed Rafi S/o Shabbir Ahammed, Age: 45 Years, Owner of Lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-16-C-3217, R/o No.1004, Majid Sab Compound, Near Jafar Sadiq Samill, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga Town.      (Rep by Sri.G.K. Mallikarjunaswamy, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	The Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Having its Branch office at 6th Cross, JCR Extension, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.N. Lokesh, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N.SREENIVASAIAH : PRESIDENT     

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to hand over the schedule vehicle as it is in a condition at the time of taking possession, to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- the loan installment paid to the OP  with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of taking possession of the lorry, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony, loss of reputation and loss of earnings and etc.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the RC owner of 12 wheel goods vehicle bearing Regn. No.KA-16 C-3217 HGV.  The same has been purchased from the financial assistance obtained from OP to eke-out his livelihood.  The entire family of the complainant is depending upon the earnings of the said vehicle.  The complainant has availed loan of Rs.22,15,000/- in the year 2015 from the OP branch to be repayable in 60 equal monthly installments of Rs.53,000/-.  The complainant has paid nearly Rs.8,00,000/- up to March 2017 but, with heavy financial difficulties, he is not able to pay the remaining installments.  The complainant further submitted that, he is suffering from heart problems and admitted to different Hospital and spend nearly Rs.5,00,000/-.  Due to that, the complainant is not able to pay the installments.  It is further submitted that, on 04.04.2017, OP has seized the vehicle with the help of rowdy elements without giving proper notice to the complainant or to the guarantor.  Immediately, the complainant approached the OP and requested to release the seized vehicle but, the OP has not heeded to his request.  The taking of the vehicle by the OP is illegal one.  All of a sudden, they taken possession of the said vehicle forcibly without observing all the legal formalities and any information.  Hence, the act of the OP is illegal and it is against to the Principles of Natural Justice.  Even after the seizure of the vehicle, OP never issued any notice to the complainant or to the guarantor.  After seizing of the vehicle the complainant again approached the OP and requested to release the seized vehicle and prays time to pay the balance amount in installments but, the OP refused to release the vehicle and sold the vehicle for a meager amount to some other person.  Hence, the complainant has suffered mentally and physically.  It is the illegal act of the OP, without any income and profit, the complainant and his family members are come to street.  It tent amounts to the gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has got earning or income of Rs.1,000/- per day from the said vehicle.  From the illegal act of the OP the complainant has lost his earnings or income since from the date of seizing of the vehicle.  Hence, complainant is entitled for loss or earnings.  It is further submitted that, after seizing of the vehicle, the complainant has intimated to the RTO, Chitradurga requesting not to issue FRC in favour of the OP in respect of the vehicle on 09.05.2017.  The said application is still pending before the RTO.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on when the OP has seized the vehicle from the custody of the complainant illegally and forcibly without observing the legal formalities on 04.04.2017 and when the complainant has given petition to the RTO, Chitradurga on 09.05.2017 not to issue the FRC to the OP which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, prayed for allowing the complaint.       

3.     After service of notice to the OPs OP has appeared through Advocate Sri. N. Lokesh but not filed any version, affidavit and written version.

4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on the documents like Ex.A-1 to A-19 and closed his side. 

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency in seizing the vehicle without giving proper notice or without following the procedure as contemplated under law?

(2) What order?

 

7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 C-3217 HGV, the same has been purchased the same by obtaining a loan of Rs.22,15,000/- from the OP  in the year 2005.  The complainant agreed to repay the same in 60 equal monthly instalments of Rs.53,000/-.  Accordingly, the complainant has paid the installments up to March 2017 nearly for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.  Due to financial crisis and due to heart problem, complainant is not able to pay the installments.  The complainant has spent nearly Rs.5,00,000/- to his heart problem.  Further without issuing any notice or without following the procedure as contemplated under law, the OP has seized the said vehicle and after seizing without giving any notice and without giving an opportunity to the complainant to pay the installments, the OP has sold the vehicle to some other person for a meager amount.  The complainant is depending upon the earnings of the said vehicle and his family is entirely depending upon the earnings of the said vehicle.  After selling the vehicle for a meager amount, the OP never intimated the complainant and never adjusted the sale amount to the complainant’s account and never issued any notice to the complainant about the amount the vehicle was sold and how much amount has been remained in the account of the complainant.  So, the OP has committed deficiency of service in non-issuing pre-seizing notice and pre-sale notice.       

9.     We have gone through the entire pleadings, documents and affidavits filed by the complainant.  Accordingly, those exhibits clearly shows that, the complainant is the RC owner of the above said vehicle and the documents are stands in the name of the complainant.  The complainant has produced the photocopies of the said vehicle, which shows at the time of seizing the vehicle, the vehicle was in good condition.  The complainant also produced the documents the same have been marked as Ex.A-1 to 19.  Those documents clearly shows that, the complainant has paid the loan installments regularly to the OP.  Due to some heart problem, the complainant fails to pay the loan installment after March 2017.  By that time, the OP has never issued any seizing notice to the complainant.  Forcibly, the OP has seized the vehicle from the custody of the complainant and sold the vehicle to some other person for a meager amount when the vehicle was in a good condition. The photos produced by the complainant shows that, the vehicle was in a good condition.  After seizing the vehicle, the OP has not issued any opportunity or sale notice to the complainant which is a deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Hence, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,67,100/- along with interest @ 9% p.a to the complainant for seizing the vehicle and selling the same to some other person without following the procedure.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 8/12/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Original RC
02	Ex.A-2:-	Copy of permit
03	Ex.A-3:-	Letter dated 09.05.2017 by the complainant to RTO, Chitradurga
04	Ex.A-4 & 5:-	4 Photos
05	Ex.A-6:-	CD and Cash Bill of Sri Sai Digital Studio and Video dated 20.04.2017
06	Ex.A-7:-	Receipt dated 30.05.2016
07	Ex.A-8:-	Receipt dated 30.04.2016
08	Ex.A-9:-	Receipt dated 07.06.2016
09	Ex.A-10:-	Receipt dated 13.06.2016
10	Ex.A-11:-	Receipt dated 25.06.2016
11	Ex.A-12:-	Receipt dated 27.07.2016
12	Ex.A-13:-	Receipt dated 23.03.2016
13	Ex.A-14:-	Receipt dated 30.08.2016
14	Ex.A-15:-	Receipt dated 07.12.2016
15	Ex.A-16:-	Receipt dated 28.12.2016
16	Ex.A-17:-	Receipt dated 31.01.2016
17	Ex.A-18:-	Receipt dated 07.03.2016
18	Ex.A-19:-	Receipt dated 07.03.2016

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**