HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. YARLAGADDA KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party is the appeallant.

(2.) THE brief facts of the complaint as seen from the complaint are that the complainant purchased Mercedes Benz car from M/s Adishwar Auto Diagnostics by availing a loan from the opposite party. The opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs.40,00,000/ - and by paying balance amount the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 03 -04 -2008. The opposite party paid Rs.40 lakhs on 18 -03 -2008 instead of Rs.38.15 lakhs to Adishwar Auto Diagnostics, Hyderabad . On enquiry the opposite party stated that they have kept one instalment with it out of the loan instalment. The complainant paid balance amount to a tune of Rs. 14 lakhs as also six monthly instalments. The complainant had suddenly gone to United States of America on his business purpose and prior to that the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party to furnish account copy in detail. The opposite party failed to do so and the complainant stopped payment of instalments under protest and taking advantage of the absence of the complainant the opposite party took away the vehicle without consent of the complainant and sold it at throw away price. The efforts of the complainant became futile and that the opposite party failed to follow the procedure in seizing and selling the vehicle. The complainant sustained huge loss and untold agony. Hence, the complaint.

(3.) THE opposite party resisted the case and contended that at the time of availing loan executed all the relevant documents. The complainant knows the payment schedule (instalment) and that the complainant was due to a tune of Rs. 37,43,839/ -. The opposite party addressed letters and sent notices to the complainant but of no avail. The opposite party referred the matter to a Sole Arbitrator by name Mr. M. Basava Reddy, Vijayawada who passed awarded to an amount of Rs. 37,43,839/ - and thereafter by filing original petition before III Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad vide O.P.No.533/2009 the opposite party seized the vehicle by giving notice to the concerned police. The opposite party has no concern about the payment of Rs.14 lakhs by the complainant and that there was no deficiency in service what so ever on the part of the opposite party. After seizure of the vehicle, the complainant was informed about the balance payable by him and as the complainant did not pay the amount, the opposite party sold the vehicle to the third party. The opposite party followed the procedure laid by the terms and conditions of agreement of hypothecation and other formalities as per the existing laws. No deficiency in service or negligence or irregularities can be attributed to the opposite party