Date of filing:19/01/2022

Date of disposal:30/08/2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

SANGAREDDY

PRESENT:Smt. P. Kasthuri,….. President

Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu…. Member
Sri Makyam Vijay Kumar…. Member

Tuesday, the 30th day of August, 2022

CC.No.6 of 2022

Between:
VUDUGULA ANJANEYULU S/O BALA GOUD,
Aged about 59 years, Occ: TATA Ace Driver,
R/o H.No.6-27/1, Ambedkar Colony,
Narsapur Town & Mandal, Medak District.
Cell No.93900 59093.
…Complainant
And

The Manager,
TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED,
QUEEN PLAZA-City Bank Building,
4th Floor, Unit No.4,
S.P.Road, Chikkoti Gardens,
Begumpet, Hyderabad. Telangana State.
.…Opposite party

Counsel for the Complainant: - Party-in-person.

Counsel for the Opposite party- Sri G.Srikanth

This case came up for final hearing before us on 29.08.2022 in the

presence of VUDUGULA ANJANEYULU S/O BALA GOUD, and Sri G.Srikanth
Advocate for the opposite party, upon perusing the material papers on the
record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this
Commission passed the following:-
ORDER

(Per seSri Gajjala Venkateswarlu, Member)

This complaint is filed U/S-35 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019,

praying the Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite party to pay an amount
of Rs.2,45,000/- to the complainant which is paid by him towards costs of the
Vehicle installment amount including the repairing expenditure made by him
and loss of the earnings due to non-plying of the auto for hire in the months of
November, December, 2021 and January, 2022 and costs of the litigation may
be awarded.
The case of the complainant in brief: -

1. The Complainant stated that on 31.03.2017, the complainant

purchased a TATA Magic Seven Seaters Auto bearing No.TS 35T 0974from the
JASPER INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD., by paying a sum of Rs.87,000/- through
cheque, by taking the Loan from the opposite party (Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,
Hyderabad) payable the EMI @ Rs.12,200/- every month for 48 months.
 2

Accordingly, the complainant has paid the installments regularly from

02.06.2017 to 3.09.2021. But in between the complainant was paid some
installments in late due to Covid-2019 Pandemic.

On 19.10.2021 the opposite party took over the Auto Vehicle forcibly
from the complainant. Immediately after two days the complainant
approached the opposite party and came to know that only two installment
amounts are to be paid and the opposite party demanded to pay
Rs.1,15,450/- including the late payment and other charges. On request
made by the complainant, the opposite party has accepted to take the amount
of Rs.95,000/- instead of Rs.1,15,450/-. On 06.11.2021 the complainant was
ready to pay Rs.75,000/- to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not
accept to take the said amount. After 4 days the complainant again
approached the opposite party and informed that he is ready to pay the entire
amount of Rs.95,000/-, but the opposite party informed that the said Auto
Vehicle was already sold in Auction without giving any prior notice to the
complainant as per instructions given by their Head Office.

The complainant stated that he expended an amount of Rs.46,327/-

towards repairing charges of the Auto viz., Battery, Tyres and Seats and the
complainant stated that if he decides to sell the auto, he would have get an
amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant further stated that he lost his
earnings of Rs.90,000/- due to non-plying of the Auto for hire in the month
November, December – 2021 and January 2022. As such, the complainant lost
total amount of Rs.2,45,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

Written version of the opposite party as fallows: -

2. The opposite party stated that TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED is a

company duly incorporated under Section 45-1A of the RBI Act 1934, as a
Non-Banking Finance Company, having its registered office at Dinshaw
Building, Office No.14, 4th Floor, 16 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.
The opposite party denied all the allegations contained in the complaint,
except those, which are specifically admit by them. The opposite party took
preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present complaint
as under:-

3) The opposite party stated that the instant complaint is liable to be

dismissed solely on the ground that an award under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act has been passed by the Hon’ble Arbitrator on dated
25.05.2019 in favour of the opposite party and against the complaint. The
opposite party submitted that the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes
 3

Redressal Commission in the case of Installment Supply Ltd Vs Kangra Ex-

Serviceman Transport Company & another decided on 05.10.2006 and
reported in I(2007) CPJ34(NC) has clearly held that a Complaint cannot be
decided by the Consumer Forum after an arbitration award is already passed.
The Hon’ble Commission held that “In view of the decision of the Arbitrator
which is binding on parties, the District Commission should not have passed
an order by overlooking the award. Hence, the court allowed the revision
petition, orders passed by District Commission was set aside and complaint
was dismissed”. Hence, the opposite party submitted that the present
complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone without even going
into the merits of the case.

The opposite party further stated that the instant Complaint is not
maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission for the reason that the
complainant does not falls within the purview of the definition of a Consumer
as mentioned under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

(d) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised
or partly paid and partly promised, or partly paid and partly promised,
or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such
goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration
paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system
of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such
person, but does not includea person who obtains such goods for
resale or for any commercial purpose. That the complainant
purchased the vehicle in dispute for commercial purpose and hence the
Complainant does not qualify to be a consumer within the meaning of
the Act, thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed forthwith.

The opposite party further stated that the present complaint is liable to be
dismissed for want of cause of action, it is submitted that no cause of action
ever arose under the said complaint and that the Complainant has filed the
present complaint only on the basis of hypothetical presumptions/situation
and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of
action.

The opposite party further stated that the complaint filed by the
complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under
the Act, as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by this opposite
party nor any deficiency in services being established against this opposite
 4

party, hence the averments and/or allegations made therein are false,
frivolous, baseless and misconceived and the complaint is liable for rejection
and the same may kindly be rejected in totality.

The Opposite party further stated that the complainant approached the
opposite party and intended to avail financial assistance for purchasing a
TATA MAGIC 7 Seater Auto. The opposite party explained the entered terms
and conditions of the loan agreement, which were duly read and understood
by the complainant. The opposite party further stated that after carrying out
all the due diligence sanctioned a Loan of Rs.3,78,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Seventy Eight thousand only) in favour of the complainant. It is submitted
that the Loan was repayable in 48 Equated Monthly Installments of
Rs.12,200/- each including interest.

The opposite party further stated that the complainant with best known
reasons has not pleaded that the complainant had applied voluntarily for the
loan facility after fully knowing well about the terms and conditions of the
loan. In this regard, reference may be taken of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bharti Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwise Express Courier
(1996) 4 SCC 704, whereby it was held that when the complainant signs the
contract documents, he is bound by its terms & conditions and the onus
would be on him to prove the terms & the circumstances, in which he has
signed the contract, The complainant duly executed the Loan Agreement
No.5002253117 dated 26.04.2017.

The opposite party further stated that the complainant committed

default in paying the monthly installments as stipulated under the Loan
Agreement, and as such the opposite party recalled the Loan vide notice dated
12.03.2019 calling up the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.3,24,497/-
along with applicable interest. That the complainant failed to pay the amount
as mentioned in the notice dated 12.03.2019. Therefore, the opposite party in
accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement initiated arbitration
proceedings against the complainant. The Hon’ble Arbitrator was pleased to
pass Interim Order dated 04.04.2019 directing the Complainant to handed
over the possession of the vehicle in favour of the opposite party. Thereafter
the Hon’ble Arbitrator was pleased to pass final award dated 25.05.2019
directing the complainant to pay Rs.3,24,497/- together with interest @ 18%
p.a., from 19.03.2019 till the realization. The Hon’ble Arbitrator further held
that the opposite party is entitled to enforce and realize the mounts by
recovering /taking possession/repossession of the vehicle and sell the same by
public auction or private treaty and appropriate the net sale proceeds thereof
 5

toward the outstanding amounts. The opposite party further stated that the
terms of the loan agreement and in furtherance to the award was entitled to
take possession of the vehicle and to further sale the same for the recovery of
its dues. Hence the opposite party repossessed the vehicle on 19.10.2021.

The opposite party issued a presale notice dated 11.12.2020 to the

complainant and granted a final opportunity to pay the award amount as per
the Arbitration Proceedings however the complainant failed to remit any
amount. The opposite party has sold the vehicle on 12.11.2021 following due
process of law, in a public auction to bidder Parvathi Kumara Swamy resident
of Geesukonda Mandal, Warangal and the same sale proceeds so received were
appropriated the loan account of the complainant, after selling the vehicle the
opposite party was incurred loss on sale amounting to Rs.38,110/- only that
the complainant is liable to pay the opposite party. The opposite party further
stated that it is germane to mention at this juncture that the financer has the
right to repossess a particular hypothecated vehicle if the agreement permits
the financer to take into possession of the vehicle and that the same has been
reiterated by the Hon’ble National Commission and Apex Court in the below
mentioned catena of judgments.

“Hon”ble National Commission in Magma Fincorp Limited Vs

Subhankar Singh I (2013) CPJ 27 (NC) has held Financier can repossess the
vehicle in default in repayment of monthly installments. Petitioner had
defaulted severed times in making payment on dates when it was due- Mere
fact that possession was taken by respondents (financer) cannot be a ground to
contend that hirer is prejudiced. Complaint dismissed.

Hon’ble National Commission in Surendra Kumar Agrawal Vs

Telco Finance Limited (II (2010) CPJ (NC) 163) has also held that Vehicle
under Hire-Purchase can be repossessed by financer if the hirer fails to make
payment of monthly installments as stipulated in the agreement.

Hon’ble National Commission in Kisan Vs ICICI Bank Ltd., &Anr. (I

(2013)CPJ 127 (NC) has held – Hire-Purchase Agreement Default in payment of
installments-Vechicle Repossessed – Alleged deficiency in service – District
Forum dismissed appeals – State Commission dismissed Appeal – Hence
Revision – Petitioner did not deposit three installments as agreed in repayment
schedule-He wants to have vehicle without paying installments and falsely
alleges that it is unfair trade practice-Impugned order upheld.

Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Pal Singh Versus Shri Transport

Finance Co.ltd., (I (2013) CPJ 456 (NC) has held that repossessing vehicle
 6

under the terms and conditions of hire-purchase agreement cannot be

considered as any negligence – It was within the domain of financer to
repossess vehicle upon purchaser’s failure to pay installments.

The opposite party further stated that the complainant has alleged that
he had incurred some expenses regarding the refurbishment of the vehicle in
question. However, the complainant has not supported the said allegation
with any material documents and hence the said contention is at the outset,
baseless and malafide.

The opposite party further submitted that the instant complaint

makes out no ground for relief under the provision of the Act. The onus lies
on the complainant to show that the reliefs can be given for the deficiency in
service provided to the complainant. In the present case, it is crystal clear
that there has been no unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party
and/or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

The opposite party further submitted that the complainant has

failed to make out a prima facie case against the opposite party. The reliefs
sought for by the complainant in his complaint are denied as false,
unsustainable and without any merits and the complainant be put to strict
proof of the same. The complainant has no ad judicable grievance against the
opposite party and the complainant has failed to prove any cause of action or
prima facie case in the complaint against the opposite party and therefore,
failed to set up any case for any reliefs as such, the complaint filed by the
complainant may be dismissed with costs.

3) The Complainant has filed evidence affidavit and examined

himself as PW.1 and got marked his documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.36 on his
behalf.

4. The opposite party after receiving notice from this Commission had filed
their written version, Evidence Affidavit and examined its Assistant Manager
Legal Mr.Johnson Andrews as RW.1 and got marked their documents as
Ex.B.1 to B.7 on their behalf.

The Complainant made oral submission and sought to treat his

Compliant and Evidence Affidavit as written arguments. The opposite party
has filed written arguments and made oral submissions.
 7

5) Now the points for consideration are:

a) Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice

on the part of the opposite party?

b) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?

c) If so, to what relief?

6) Points Nos. ( a ) and ( b ):-

It is an undisputed fact that on 31.03.2017 the complainant purchased

a TATA MAJIC Seven Seaters Auto Bearing No.TS 35T 0974 from the JASPER
INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD., by paying a sum of Rs.87,000/- through cheque by
taking the loan from the opposite party (TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.,
HYDERABAD) payable the EMI @ Rs.12,200/- as monthly installments for
equated 48 months. Accordingly, the complainant has paid the installments
regularly from 02.6.2017 to 3.9.2021. But the complainant has paid some
installments in late due to Covid-2019 Pandemic and the statement of account
is marked as Ex.A.1.

On 19.10.2021 the opposite party men taken over the Auto Vehicle
forcibly from the complainant. Immediately after two days, the complainant
Approached the opposite party and he came to know that only two installment
amounts are to be paid and the opposite party demanded the complainant to
pay an amount of Rs.1,15,450/- including the late payment and other
charges. On requests made by the complainant, the opposite party, has
accepted to take an amount of Rs.95,000/- instead of Rs.1,15,450/-. On
06.11.2021, the complainant was ready to pay Rs.75,000/- to the opposite
party but the opposite party did not accept to take the said amount. After 4
days the complainant again approached the opposite party and informed that
he is ready to pay the entire amount of Rs.95,000/- by way of Demand Draft
but the opposite party informed that the said Auto Vehicle was already sold in
auction without giving any prior notice to the complainant as per instructions
given by their head office.

The complainant stated that on 08.04.2021 he expended an amount of

Rs.33,717/- for repairing of the engine of the auto from Sri Lakshmi Narsimha
Motors, Muthangi, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District and Rs.3500/- for
the battery of the Auto at Narsapur on 03.07.2021, he expended an amount of
Rs.5,400/- for tubes and tyres of the Auto at Narsapur. On 03.10.2021, he
 8

expended Rs.710/-for tyre rod balls and Rs.3,000/- for repairing of the seats
at Sangareddy District and the complainant expended total amount of
Rs.46,327/- for his seven-seater Auto vehicle before the sale (Auction)
proceedings conducted by the opposite party. The complainant stated that if
he would have sold the Auto it would have fetched him an amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- and since the complainant has to pay Rs.95,000/- as agreed by
Opposite Party and he lost his earnings of Rs.90,000/- due to non-plying of
the Auto vehicle for hire in the month of November, December-2021 and
January 2022. As such, the complainant lost the total income of
Rs.2,45,000/- and sought the same to be paid back to him along with any
other relief or reliefs by this Commission.

Per contra the Opposite Party stated that there is no deficiency in

Services and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is an Arbitration
award on 25-05-2019 in favour of the opposite party and against the
complaint awarding Rs.3,24,497/- along with applicable interest. The
Opposite party stated that Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission in the case of Installment Supply Ltd Vs Kangra Ex-
Serviceman Transport Company & another decided on 05.10.2006 and
reported in I(2007) CPJ34(NC) has clearly held that a Complaint cannot be
decided by the Consumer Forum after an arbitration award is already passed.
The Hon’ble Commission held that “In view of the decision of the
Arbitrator, which is binding on parties, the District Commission should
not have passed an order by overlooking the award. Hence, the court
allowed the revision petition, orders passed by District Commission was
set aside and complaint was dismissed”. Hence, the present complaint is
liable to be dismissed on this ground alone without even going into the merits
of the case.

However, even though there is an Arbitration Award passed on 25-05-

2019, the Opposite Party went ahead and collected the Installment amounts
from the Complainant periodically and thus the effect of Arbitration Award has
been diluted by the Opposite party itself and it has no significance now as the
Opposite Party collected the payments from the Complainant post Arbitration
Award. On perusal of Account Statement i.e., Exhibit A-15 the following
payments are received by the Opposite Party from the Complainant post
Arbitration Award:
 9

Date Amount collected by the Opposite Party

30-05-2019 Rs.10,109/-
31-05-2019 Rs.2,100/-
28-06-2019 Rs.12,143/-
29-06-2019 Rs.100/-
02-08-2019 Rs.4,470/-
24-08-2019 Rs.10,000/-
27-08-2019 Rs.10,000/-
21-09-2019 Rs.47,825/-
27-09-2019 Rs.5/-
30-11-2019 Rs.50/-
30-11-2019 Rs.800/-
30-12-2019 Rs.14,585/-
24-02-2020 Rs.11,641/-
05-03-2020 Rs.39,009/-
27-01-2021 Rs.1,500/-
27-01-2021 Rs.32,252/-
28-01-2021 Rs.1,500/-
02-07-2021 Rs.20,000/-
02-07-2021 Rs.39,585/-
03-09-2021 Rs.24,900/-
Total Rs.2,82,521/-

Since the payment of close to Rs.3 Lakhs i.e., Rs.2,82,521/- has been
collected as against the arbitral award amount of Rs.3,24,497/-; the
complaint cannot be dismissed on the grounds of the Arbitral Award and the
significance of Arbitral Award is lost on acceptance of monthly installments by
the Opposite Party.

The Opposite Party further stated that the Complaint itself is not
maintainable as the Complainant does not fall under the definition of
“Consumer” with the definition provided under Section 2(7) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019; since the complainant purchased the vehicle in dispute
for commercial purpose and hence the Complainant does not qualify to be a
consumer within the meaning of the Act, thus the present complaint is liable
to be dismissed forthwith.

However, it appears to us that the Complainant purchased the Vehicle

for his livelihood and in catena of judgments right from Lakshmi Engineers
Case it was held that if a product is purchased for earning livelihood, he/she
will be held to be consumer. Further the Apex Court in the case of Sunil
Kohli &Anr. Vs M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.Civil Appeal Nos. 9004-
 10

9005/2018, reiterated the provision that came up for consideration in Laxmi

Engineering Works, and held by giving illustrations stated that "A person who
purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood
would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for
plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer." In the instant
case the Seven-Seater Auto is purchased for earning his livelihood cannot be
held as a commercial transaction and thus this commission negates the
arguments of the Opposite Party. The Complainant thus is a consumer within
the extended meaning provided under the judgments by the Apex Court
interpreting Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Opposite party further claimed that there is no cause of action, and
the complaint is filed on hypothetical presumptions/situations and as such
the complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, the complainant in the
complaint clearly narrated the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite
party in that even though he is ready with the balance payment at the
Opposite Party office with cash as well as Demand Draft of Rs.95,000/- which
is filed as Exhibit No. A-22 the Opposite Party had gone ahead and sold the
vehicle in auction without giving any notice to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party stated that Complainant had willfully signed the
Loan Contract Loan Agreement No.5002253117 dated 26.04.2017 and thus he
needs to be abided by said terms and conditions in the said contract as held
in the case of Bharti Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwise Express Courier
(1996) 4 SCC 704 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Contract terms and conditions though violated by the Complainant,

the Opposite Party has gone ahead and allowed him to pay the Installment
amount and collected almost all installments expect two final installments and
thus there seems to be no violation of loan contract terms and conditions;
however there seems to be some delay in the payments by the Complainant.

The opposite party further stated that the complainant committed

default in paying the monthly installments as stipulated under the Loan
Agreement, and as such the opposite party recalled the Loan vide notice dated
12.03.2019 calling up the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.3,24,497/-
along with applicable interest as per the Arbitration award passed on
19.03.2019. The opposite party stated that it had issued a presale notice
dated 11.12.2020 to the complainant and granted a final opportunity to pay
the award amount as per the Arbitration Proceedings, however the
complainant failed to remit any amount. Thus, the opposite party had sold
the vehicle on 12.11.2021 following due process of law, in a public auction to
 11

bidder Parvathi Kumara Swamy resident of Geesukonda Mandal, Warangal

and the same sale proceedings so received were appropriated the loan account
of the complainant, after selling the vehicle the opposite party was incurred
loss on sale amounting to Rs.38,110/- only that the complainant is liable to
pay the opposite party.

Thus, as per the statements of the Opposite Party, we can safely

presume that the vehicle is sold to recover the Arbitration Award of
Rs.3,24,497/-with a shortfall of Rs.38,110/-and hence, the vehicle got sold
for Rs.2,86,387/- as narrated by them.

The Opposite Party despite collection of monthly Installments post

arbitral award and when there are only two installments pending has seized
the vehicle and proceed for public auction of the same. The Complainant was
ready with balance amount due as per the statement and he was ready with
Rs.75,000/- cash at the Opposite Party’s Office; however, the Opposite Party
had calculated the total due amount as Rs.1,15,450/- including the late
payment and other charges. On request made by the complainant, the
opposite party seems to have agreed to accept and close the account for
Rs.95,000/- instead of Rs.1,15,450/- and thus Complainant reached the
Opposite Party Office with a Demand Draft of Rs.95,000/-. However, by then
the Opposite Party seems to have sold the vehicle in public auction and
intimated the same to the Complainant.

Thus, since the entire amount due to them has already been collected
through installments paid by the Complainant, the Opposite Party ought to
have not seized the vehicle; however, they seized it from the Complainant and
despite the Complainant is ready with the payment shown as outstanding by
the Opposite Party (Which was wrongly calculated) the Opposite Party has
gone ahead and sold the vehicle. These acts of the Opposite Party are nothing,
but Unfair Trade Practices as narrated in the definition under Section 2(47) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Opposite Party had waited for almost 2 ½ years from the date of
Arbitral award and collected Installments from the Complainant and finally on
12.11.2021 sold the vehicle despite the complainant ready with the balance
payments that were alleged to be due to the Opposite Party. This is nothing
but deficiency in services by the Opposite Party.

The present matter was initially reserved for Orders on

10.08.2022 and later reopened for getting clarification from the Opposite Party
and thus Opposite Party were directed to produce the Auction details such as
 12

where the auction notice was published, who were all participated in the
auction and for what exact amount the vehicle was sold; however, the
Opposite Party failed to produce any such records for Auction and sale of the
Vehicle and thus reserved again on 29.08.2022. Hence, as stated supra the
vehicle is sold by the Opposite Party to recover the Arbitration Award of
Rs.3,24,497/-with a shortfall of Rs.38,110/-and hence, we can presume that
the vehicle got sold for Rs.2,86,387/- as narrated by them.

Hence, there is a deficiency in service /Unfair Trade Practices on the

part of the opposite party. Therefore, we conclude that the complainant is
entitled for an amount of Rs.3,80,738/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty
Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Eight only) as follows:

a) Excess amount Rs.2,44,411/-left after the sale of the vehicle in

auction presuming the vehicle is sold for Rs.2,86,387/-and the
amount collected after arbitral award was Rs.2,82,521/-as per the
statement provided; thus, overall amount accumulated by the
Opposite party is Rs.5,68,908/- including the sale proceeds and
installments received by them. The total due amount as per arbitral
award was Rs.3,24,497/-and henceRs.5,68,908/-minus
Rs.3,24,497/-is Rs.2,44,411/-excess amount collected from the
Complainant by the Opposite Party.

b) The costs incurred by the Complainant on the vehicle repairing

expenditure is Rs.46,327/- for which the Complainant filed Exhibits
No. A18 to A21 which are not denied by the Opposite Party; and

c) The loss of the earnings as claimed by the Complainant due to non-

plying of the Auto Vehicle for hire in the months of November,
December 2021 and January 2022 is Rs.90,000/-

Totally Rs.3,80,738/-with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint i.e.,

19.1.2022 till the date of realization.

which is Collected/accumulated from the Complainant by the Opposite

Party, repairing expenditure made by the complainant and loss of the earnings
due to non-plying of the Auto vehicle for hire in the months of November,
December 2021 and January 2022.

The complainant shall return all the original documents pertaining to

the vehicle to opposite party on receipt of the above amount from opposite
party.

The point No.(a) & (b) are answered accordingly.

 13

9. Point No.C:-In the result: the complaint of the complainant is allowed and
direct the opposite party:-

1) to pay a sum of Rs.3,80,738/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty thousand Seven

Hundred and Thirty Eight only)to the complainant towards excess amount
left after the sale of the vehicle, costs incurred by the Complainant on the
vehicle repairing expenditure and loss of the earnings due to non-plying of
the Auto Vehicle for hire in the months of November, December 2021 and
January 2022 with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint i.e.,
19.1.2022 till the date of realization.

2) to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards Costs of

the litigation.

Time for compliance is 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Typed to dictation, Corrected, and pronounced by us in the open court

today on this the 30th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant: For opposite party:-

-Nil- -Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:

Ex.A1/dt.03.12.2021- Photostat copy of SBI Bank Statement from

1 Jan 2017 to December 2017 (4 pages).
Ex.A2/dt.20.02.2018- Photostat copy of Motor Policy Schedule Cum
Certificate of Insurance.
Ex.A3/dt.20.02.2018- Photostat copy of TATA MOTORS INSURANCE
BROKING AND ADVISORY SERVICES LTD.,
Ex.A.4/dt.Nil. Photostat copy of Pan card of complainant.
Ex.A5/dt.04.01.2017- Photostat copy of Driving License.
Ex.A6/dt.31.03.2017- Photostat copy of Tax Invoice of the vehicle.
Ex.A7/dt.31.03.2017- Photostat copy of Temporary Certificate of
Registration.
Ex.A8/dt.31.03.2017 - Photostat copy of Tax Receipt.
Ex.A9/dt.31.03.2017- Photostat copy of application for registration of Motor
vehicle.
Ex.A10/dt.31.03.20-17- Photostat copy of M/s Jasper Industries Private
Limited, Sale certificate.
Ex.A11/dt.01.10.2016- Photostat copy of Initial Certificate of Road
worthiness.
Ex.A12/dt.31.03.2017- Photostat copy of Cholamandalam MS.General
Insurance Company Limited (Passenger Carrying
Vehicle-Certificate cum Policy Scheme).
Ex.A13/dt.29.04.2017- Photostat copy of online payment receipt.
 14

Ex.A14/dt.06.11.2021- Photostat copy of receipt (TATA Motors Finance

Limited).
Ex.A15/dt.06.11.2021- Photostat copy of Tata Motors Finance Limited
(Formerly known as Sheba Properties Ltd, Contract
Details (18 pages).
Ex.A16/dt.19.10.2021- Photostat copy of TATA Motor Finance Inventory of
items in Vehicles.
Ex.A17/dt.26.04.2017- Photostat copy of Tata Motors Finance Limited
Simulated Premature Termination Statement as on
06.11.2021.
Ex.A18/dt.08.04.2021- Sri Laxmi Narasimha Motors, TATA Motors
Authorized Service Station, Proforma Invoice.
Ex.A19/dt.25.06.2021- Photostat copy of Batteries warranty.
Ex.A20/dt.03.07.2021- Photostat copy of Tax Invoice for tyres and tubes.
Ex.A21/dt.08.10.2021- Photostat copy of bill of Krutik Auto works,
Jeedimetla, Hyderabad.
Ex.A22/dt. 24.11.2021-Photostat copy of Demand Draft in favour of opposite
party for Rs.95,000/-.
Ex.A23/dt.18.04.2017- Photostat copy of Govt of Telangana Transport
department motor vehicle registration.
Ex.A24/dt.22.10.2018- Photostat copy of Transport Department permit in
respect of particular contract carriage.
Ex.A25/dt.04.01.2017- Photostat copy of Driving License.
Ex.A26/dt.Nil. -Photostat copy of Aadhar copy.
Ex.A27/dt.Nil. -Photostat copy of National Food Security Cards
(Ration Card).
Ex.A28/dt.21.09.2019- Photostat copy of cash receipt for Rs.48,650/-.
Ex.A29/dt.02.07.2021- cash deposit bill for Rs.20,000/-.
Ex.A30/dt.02.07.2021- cash receipt for Rs.40,000/-.
Ex.A31/dt.28.01.2021- Cash deposit Rs.1500/-.
Ex.A32/dt.27.01.2021- Cash deposit receipt for Rs.39,000/-.
Ex.A33/dt.27.01.2021- Cash deposit receipt for Rs.1500/-.
Ex.A34/dt.03.09.2021 – Cash receipt for Rs.24,900/- (Receipt No.305646660).
Ex.A35/dt.27.01.2021 – Cash receipt for Rs.9,450/-.
Ex.A36/dt.24.11.2021 - Copy of DD for Rs.95,000/-.

For opposite parties:-

Ex.B1/dt.17.04.2017- Photostat copy of Loan cum Hypothecation cum
Guarantee Agreement.
Ex.B2/dt.11.04.2022- Photostat copy Tata Motors Finance Limited (Formerly
known as Sheba Properties Ltd, Contract Details
Ex.B3/dt.12.03.2019- Photostat copy of notice.
Ex.B4/dt.04.04.2019- Photostat copy of Arbitration Interim order U/Sec 17
of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration
CaseNo.FileNo.CH4/TMFL/South/ARB/599/2019.
Ex.B5/dt.25.05.2019- Photostat copy of Final Arbitration award copy.
Ex.B6/dt.11.12.2020- Photostat copy of Pre-sale notice.
Ex.B7/dt.19.10.2021- Photostat copy of Inventory of items in Vehicles.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Copy to:
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.party
3) Spare copy