Date of filing :  05-12-2009

                                                                                      Date of order : 07-04-2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                C.C. 264/2009

                         Dated this, the 7^th   day of April 2010

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                       : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI                            : MEMBER

Subair.K,

S/o.Khader Haji,

R/at Thekkemoole House,                                    } Complainant

Muttathody Village and Post,

Kasaragod.Dt.

(Adv. Shafi.M. Kasaragod)

The Manager,

Bajaj Auto Finance, K.V.R. Building,       } Opposite party

Opp. Sadoo Kalyan Mantapam,

Thana, Kannur.Dist.

(Exparte)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            In nutshell the case of the complainant Sri.Subair is that his Bajaj CT 100 Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/G 2748 is illegally re-possessed by the opposite party alleging due of monthly remittance of loan that he availed from opposite party.  The further case of the complainant is that after remitting 24 monthly EMI’s out of the total 36 he approached opposite party’s agent at Kasaragod offering the remaining 12 monthly instalments in lumpsum towards the settlement of loan.  But instead of the actual dues Rs.13,056/- opposite party demanded Rs.18,382/- for closing the loan.  It is also his case that the insurer of his motor cycle denied to indemnify the loss sustained to his vehicle in an accident  due to the  non production of the original R.C. of the  motor cycle.  The original RC is retained by the opposite party.  On demand opposite party refused to hand over the same to complainant stating that the original RC will be given only after closing the loan. Thereby he had a loss of  Rs.6500/-.

2.            According to the complainant the vehicle was repossessed on 21-10-2009 without recourse to any legal means.  Therefore the complaint seeking an order against the  opposite party to hand over his motor cycle by accepting Rs.13,056/- towards the  remaining instalment dues and to pay Rs.18,500/- as compensation caused to hum due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

3.            Opposite party remained absent inspite of receipt of notice issued through registered post.  Hence opposite party is set exparte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim and Exts A1 & A2 marked.

4.         The complainant in his proof affidavit reiterated that is stated in his complaint.  According  to him as per the agreement entered between him and opposite party,  though the opposite party has to pay the insurance premium for 3 years, they  have  paid only one year insurance premium.  The opposite party has obtained 36 signed cheque leaves from him.  He has remitted 24 monthly instalments and each instalment was Rs.1088/-.  According to him only Rs.13,056/- is due to opposite party but opposite party  claiming Rs.18,382/-.  Further the insurance company denied him Rs.6500/- towards the accident claim for want of original RC which is retained by opposite party.  Apart from that the opposite party though collected the amount required for paying the insurance premium, they willfully not paid the premium.  Hence complainant compelled to pay the same at his instance.  In addition to all that the opposite party illegally re-possessed his vehicle.

5.         The evidence above let in by the complainant depicts the gross deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Therefore the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

6.         The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a catena of decisions held that the re-possession of the vehicle without recourse to legal means amounts to deficiency in service.  Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd  V. S.Vijayalaxmi  reported in 2007   CTJ 1145 (CP), ICICI Bank V. Prakash Kaur (2007)(2) SCC 711, Tata Motors V. Indrasen Choubay & Others reported in 2009 CTJ (840)(CP) (NCDRC) are some of the cases on this context.

7.            Therefore it is clear that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service on multifarious grounds and therefore they are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and hardships caused to him.

8.         The opposite party is not entitled to retain both the amount paid by the complainant and the motor cycle with them and that will amount to unjust enrichment and therefore opposite party is liable to repay the amount paid by the complainant with interest. Complainant is  also entitled to get  the compensation for the loss, hardships and mental agony caused to him with cost.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1088 x 24= Rs.26,112/- already remitted by the complainant  with a compensation of Rs.8000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Failing which the amount of Rs.26,112/- will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment.

      Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1.30-09-09 Copy of Lawyer notice.

A2. Acknowledgement card

    Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                         Sd/-

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/

                                                                                                Forwarded by Order

                                                                                         SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT