BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD Vs. SUBINAY DEY S/O-SUJIT DEY
LAWS(CALCDRC)-2014-1-2
KOLKATA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 31,2014

Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
Subinay Dey S/O -Sujit Dey Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24 -Parganas in case no.CC 50 of 2010 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/ - and directing the OPs to pay Rs.3,849/ - to the Complainant and issue no due certificate in favour of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order. The OPs were directed to return the post dated cheques to the Complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/ - for the harassment and mental agony of the Complainant and in default of the aforesaid amount the interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue thereon till realisation.
(2.) THE case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that he purchased a car by taking loan from the OPs. The EMI was fixed at Rs.6,972/ - which was paid till 24/09/09. The car was delivered in January, 2008. Eight blank cheques were delivered to the OPs by the Complainant. On 24/10/09 the OP No.2 with the help of some anti -social elements forcibly repossessed the car by assaulting the Complainant. The OPs have no right to take possession of the car from the Complainant without taking recourse to due process of law. For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.
(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Learned District Forum held that the notice was duly served before repossession and sale of the vehicle. It is submitted that there was no finding by the Learned District Forum as to the alleged deficiency in service. It is contended that while awarding the compensation and costs the Learned District Forum did not discuss about the accounting so as to give direction regarding the payment of the sum of Rs.3,949/ -. The Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Appellants forcibly repossessed the vehicle from the Complainant which was illegal. It is contended that EMI was duly paid by the Complainant. It is submitted that there was unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants. It is submitted that although the EMI was paid till 24/09/09 the vehicle was repossessed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.