DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO. 07 OF 2022
Date of Filing: 28.04.2022
Date of Order: 27.02.2023
1.Sri Prabin Barik,
S/o – Kumbhakarna Barik
At/Po- Guma, PS- Belghar
Dist- Kandhamal ………………….. Complainant
Versus.
- Proprietor, Maa Lalita Motors
At- Dandapadar,
Po/Ps- Balliguda
Dist- Kandhamal
2. Branch Manager,
TVS Credit Services Limited
2nd Floor, Creative Plaza Commercial Complex,
Rasulgarh Squre
Bhubaneswar-751010
3.Santosh Jena,
District branch Head,
TVS Credit Services Limited
C/o- Maa Lalita Motors
At- Dandapadar,
Po/Ps- Balliguda
District- Kandhamal
4. Bhupindar Singh Pradhan,
Collection Agent
TVS Credit Services Limited
C/o- Maa Lalita Motors
At- Dandapadar,
Po/Ps- Balliguda
District- Kandhamal
5. TVS Credit Services Limited,
Jayalakshmi Estates,No.29
Haddows Road, Nungabakkam,
Chennai-600006 …………………….. Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant: Adv.Manoj Kumar Sahoo & Associates
For O.P. : Adv.Naresh Padhy & Associates
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President
Complainant Prabin Barik filed this case U/s. – 35 of CP Act 2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs for snatching away his vehicle by use of criminal force and praying therein for a direction to the OPs to return the vehicle Apache 180 RTR bike bearing Regd. No. OD 12B 6330 and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Brief fact leading to the case is that the petitioner has purchased one TVS motor cycle which was registered with the mark OD 12B 6330 .The petitioner had paid down payment of Rs. 40,000/- and the rest amount was repayable in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 2,837/- because of the pandemic situation the complainant failed to deposit the installments. The OPs on 18.03.2022 without any prior notice, seized the vehicle without supplying him any seizure memo and as the nephew of the complainant who had come to repair the vehicle protested against such act. The OP No. 1,3 & 4 alongwith others threatened him for dire consequence and on the next day he went to the OP No. 1 and from him came to know that OP No. 2 has seized the motor cycle and now lying in industrial stock yard. The OP No. 4 is the collection agent and even though he collected a sum of Rs. 7000/- from the complainant on 01.03.2022, he did not deposit it in the account of the complainant for which the vehicle was seized without prior notice and as the OPs did not release the vehicle he has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
After receipt of notice all the OPs appeared. OP No. 1 appeared in person and filed his written statement in which he stated that he is the dealer and he has no nexus with the finance and seizure of the vehicle and prays for dismiss against him as he is consigned to sell and service of TVS motor cycle. The OP No. 2 to 5 filed their joint written statement. In their written statement they stated that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.71900/- excluding finance charges repayable in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 2837/- starting from 07.11.2018 to 07.11.2022. The complainant defaulted in payment of the monthly installments for which loan recall notice was sent to the complainant on 08.04.2021 which is 90503/- as on 06.0.2021. after taking possession and before seizure intimation was given to police on 25.03.2022 and after repossession pre-sale notice was sent to the complainant and the pre auction notice on 01.04.2022 the complainant supressing the material facts has filed this case for which the OP No. 2 to 5 pray for dismissal of the case.
The complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of the registration certificate, smart card, copy of the retail invoice, copy of the insurance certificate. On the other hand the OP No. 2 to 5 filed copy of the statement of accounts, copy of the loan recall notice, copy of the pre and post intimation to the police, copy of the pre-sale notice and copy of the pre-auction notice in support of their cases. Either of the parties have not filed any oral evidence in support of their case.
The first and foremost point relating to the case is whether the OP No. 2 to 5 have followed due procedure of law to repossess the motor cycle. The OPs have filed the copy of the loan recall notice dated 08.04.2021 in support of their pleadings, there is nothing on record to show the said letter was dispatched to the complainant and there is nothing on record to show that the notice has been duly served on complainant so it is clear from the documents on record that the complainant has not been served with any notice prior to the repossession of the motorcycle. There is also nothing on record to show that the presale notice dated 28.03.2022 and the pre-auction notice has been duly served on the complainant. So, we come to the conclusion that the motorcycle in question seized without proper notice.
It is seen from the documents that the total over due on the petitioner is Rs. 62,434.73 paise as per the statement of the OPs the total due was to be paid 07.10.2022 which is already over therefore we come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to pay the total outstanding amounting to Rs. 62,434.73 paise and hence the order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed in part on contest against the OP No. 2 to 5 and dismissed against OP No. 1 The OP No. 2 to 5 are directed to receive a sum of Rs. 62,434.73(sixty two thousand four hundred thirty four and paise seventy three)only from the complainant and release his vehicle and providing with no dues certificate. It is made clear that the OPs will not claim no other charges at the time of release of vehicle or thereafter. Parties are bear no costs.
Computerized & corrected by me.
I Agree
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 27th day of February 2023 in the presence of the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
