INDUS IND BANK LTD Vs. S.T.PRABHAVATHI
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2011-6-6
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 28,2011

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) This appeal is targeted against the order of the District Forum dated 23.02.2009 in OP.102/2004, wherein, a direction has been issued to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation with costs, based upon deficiency.
(2.) The complainant/respondent approached the District Forum, seeking direction; (i) to direct the opposite party to pay the cost of the vehicle together along with miscellaneous charges of Rs.23,330/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment or in the alternative direct the opposite party to give the complainant a new vehicle; (ii) towards the compensation for the mental agony strain and stress caused to the complainant quantified at Rs.50,000/- and (iii) towards the cost of this complaint Rs.5,000/-, on the ground with among other grounds that availing loan from the opposite party, he had purchased a Bajaj Safire Scooter on 20.09.2001, agreeing to pay the balance in EMI, that despite the payments were made periodically, the opposite party illegally had snatched the vehicle from her possession without prior intimation, thereby causing severe mental agony, even damaging the reputation, for which, she is entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000/-, in addition to other directions, as said above.
(3.) The opposite party/appellant admitting that they have advanced the loan, which was agreed to be repaid on EMI, for which, the complainant had also issued cheques, that when the cheques were presented for collection many cheques were returned for want of sufficient funds in her account and thereby, she had committed default in EMI, when subsequently demanded, paid only EMI, failing to pay the penal interest and other charges, that as per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement, they are entitled to repossess the vehicle legally, which they did, cannot be termed as deficiency in service, and in this view, they are not liable to pay the amount, much less claimed in the complaint, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the case.;


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