M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite parties 1 and 2, in OP.No.28/2006, on the file of District Forum, Chennai (South), as well as the complainant, are the appellants in F.A.No.63/2009 and 70/2009, respectively.
(2.) The parties are referred, as arrayed in the complaint.
(3.) The complainant, availing loan facilities of RS.5 lakhs, from the opposite parties, had purchased a vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN-65 D-6565, agreeing, to repay the loan amount, in 47 instalments of Rs.15,273/-, for which the complainant issued 47 cheques also. The complainant, due to prior business commitment, unable to make the payment, due by October 2004, and requested time to make the payment, which was agreed. However, without prior notice, demand or intimation, the opposite parties unauthorisedly repossessed/ taken possession of the vehicle, which should be construed as deficiency in service. Thereafter, the opposite parties have issued a foreclosure letter dt.17.11.2004, stating that a sum of RS.5,49,616.57/- is due, asking him to pay the amount. Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party, requested for extension of time, for which time was given till 18.12.2004, after receiving a sum of Rs.40000/-. Thereafter, without notice, the opposite party informed the complainant, that they have sold the vehicle on 17.1.2005, not giving any notice, unilaterally pre-closing the loan, even not causing any publication, thereby they have committed once again deficiency, not honouring the agreement. Even after the foreclosure, they have not returned the cheques. In view of the above narrated facts, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, for which the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, as compensation, in addition to a direction to handover the vehicle, unlawfully repossessed by the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.;