M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite parties 1 to 4, and 5 to 7 in OP.No.107/2008 are the appellants in F.A.No.341/2010 and 164/2011 respectively.
(2.) Brief facts leading to both the appeals: The 1st respondent in both the appeals, who is the complainant, had purchased a Bajaj Mini door tempo, bearing Regn. No.TN 57 W 3114 by obtaining a loan, from the opposite parties 1 to 4, from the 6th opposite party, for a sum of Rs.197500/-, out of which loan amount was given by 4th opposite party, at Rs.160000/-, which is payable in equal monthly instalments of 36 @ RS.6220/-/- p.m. After the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant had paid instalments, totaling a sum of Rs.136682/-.
(3.) On 3.11.2007, the complainant left his vehicle with the 7th opposite party garage for repair. The 7th opposite party, who had undertaken to repair the vehicle, failed to return the vehicle, after repair, and enquiry revealed that they have handed over the vehicle to the 4th opposite party, which they are not entitled to do so. The 4th opposite party informed the complainant, as if he has to pay a sum of Rs.63,433.96/-, and immediately a sum of Rs.7000/- was paid, for which no receipt was issued. Once again the complainant has received a notice from the 3rd opposite party, informing to initiate action to trace the vehicle, and also recover the same, since according to them the outstanding was Rs.63,433.96. Thus, repossessing the vehicle, without notice, sold the same, and appropriated the sale proceeds against the complainant dues, demanding a further sum of Rs.25,476.50. As per the loan agreement, final payment of instalment will be coming to an end, in June 2008. The opposite parties 1 to 4, without following any legal procedure, legally, arbitrarily, committing criminal offence, repossessed the complainant vehicle, and sold the same, which should be construed as negligent act, followed by deficiency in service. The 7th opposite party also committed deficiency of service, in not handing over the vehicle, though it was entrusted to them, for repair. Thus, due to the deficiency of service, and unfair trade practice, on the pat of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered loss and injury, thereby, he was compelled to file this case, seeking direction for redelivery of the vehicle, or in the alternative for the payment of the value of the vehicle, in addition to compensation for mental agony against all the opposite parties, as detailed in paragraph 18 of the complaint.;