Date of Filing : 03.07.2023

                                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 23.11.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                              .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc., B.L.,                                                                 …….MEMBER-I

CC. No.57/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 23^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

Parameshwari Pachaimuthu,

No 148, R.K.J Vallivelan Nagar,

Ambedhkar Nagar Kudiyiruppu

Pothur, Thiruvallur   District,

Chennai-52.                                                                                                ……Complainant

-Vs-

Bike Bazaar

Wheels EMI Private Limited,

Rep. by its Manager Mr. Dharmaraj,

Mr. Yuvaraj, Mr.Hari

No 45, North Usman Road,

Parthasarathipuram,T.Nagar, Chennai-17.                                  ……Opposite party

Counsel for the Complainant                                                       : Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party                                                   : Set Exparte

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 10.11.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and the opposite party was set exparte for non appearance and for non filing of written version inspite of sufficient notice and upon perusing the documents and evidences of complainant’s side this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

1.This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with respect to the vehicle loan given by the opposite party along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite party in not returning the original RC book for the two wheeler purchased by the complainant out of the loan granted by opposite party the present complaint was filed.

3. Short facts leading to filing of the complaint was that a vehicle loan was obtained from the opposite party to be repaid in 25 monthly installments. However even after completing 25 months, the opposite party seized the vehicle and refused to return the vehicle stating that the complainant was due in repayment of EMIs for 2 months. Even after showing the proof of payment of EMIs they refused to accept payment for 1 month. The loan ended on 16.07.2020. As it was corona lock down period the opposite party demanded Rs. 7,500/- to close the loan for returning the vehicle papers. When approached in April 2021 several times, they cited various reasons and at last informed that the loan was over and papers would be sent home. Believing the words complainant returned. However on 27.04.2022 night the opposite party took the vehicle. When enquired they again demanded two months due as pending. When complainant explained her position they demanded Rs. 10,173 with demurrage charges. Even after sending a letter on 10.01.2023stating that the vehicle was very much necessitated for her business the opposite party did not return the vehicle. Hence, aggrieved by the act of opposite party, the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service and to direct the opposite party to return the vehicle with 2 lakhs compensation and cost.

3. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A7 were submitted. Though notice was served to the opposite party he did not appear before this Commission to file written version and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 19.10.2023 for non appearance and non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per statute.

Points for consideration:-  

1. Whether the complaint allegations as to illegal seizing of the complainant’s vehicle by the opposite party has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?

2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;

1. Statement copy from Wheels EMI Pvt. Ltd., dated 29.04.2022 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Indian Overseas Bank Statement copy (Sivaranjani) dated 29.02.2020 was marked as Ex A2;
3. Details of Statement copy (Kamalraj) by Union Bank dated 29.02.2022 was marked as Ex A3;
4. Statement copy from Wheels EMI Pvt. Ltd., dated 23.05.2022 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 28.07.2022 was marked as ExA5;
6. Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 09.01.2023 was marked as ExA6;
7. Xerox copy of Vehicle RC Book of the Complainant dated 04.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;

4. Heard the oral arguments made by the complainant and perused the written arguments filed by her.

5. The crux of the arguments is that the opposite party even after receiving the entire amount has seized the vehicle and failed to return the vehicle.

6. The statement of accounts was filed by the complainant in proof off payment of entire EMIs. It is seen from the Statement of Accounts that even during the corona lock down period, the opposite party had charged penal interest from the complainant without following the instructions given by RBI about the moratorium announced due to Lockdown. Further for the two letters given by the complainant dt. 28.07.2022 and 09.01.2023 no reply was given by the opposite party. It is also proved that the vehicle has been seized without any prior intimation and thereafter the complainant was not informed about the same which resulted in complainant even approaching the Police Station in search of her vehicle. Even the opposite party did not choose to appear inspite of sufficient notice before this Commission to refute or deny the complaint allegations.

7. In such facts and circumstances, the act of opposite party seizing the complainant’s vehicle even after the payment of entire loan amount on the pretext of one or more reasons for their illegal enrichment clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Thus, this point is answered accordingly holding that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in seizing the vehicle of the complainant without any prior intimation.

Point No.2:

8. As we have held above that the opposite party had illegally acted and took possession of the complainant’s vehicle, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get back the vehicle from the opposite party along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- cost towards litigation expenses.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing 

a) To return the vehicle along with the papers related to the vehicle within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant; 

c) To pay cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complaint.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 23^rd day of November 2023.

      -Sd-                                                                                                                -Sd-

 MEMBER-I                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

     -Sd-                                                                                                                  -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                         PRESIDENT