BENGALURU: A Chennai-based credit services firm was told to compensate the owner of a hypothecated car that was sold to a third party unilaterally, without prior intimation, after it was taken away from the middle of a road in Bengaluru for default of payment of two EMIs.
The Fourth Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed TVS Credit Services Limited (TVS Credit) to pay compensation of Rs 35,000, including Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses, to the complainant, Boompalle Brahmananda Reddy, residing in Madiwala, for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. It was also told to refund the value of the car as of the date of seizure, after deducting the balance loan amount to be paid by the complainant.
“Neither has TVS Credit issued the demand letter of balance loan amount nor have they issued sale intimation prior to the sale of the car, to the complainant. These technical and legal latches clearly attract deficient service on the part of TVS Credit, which has miserably failed to follow procedure in order to recover the balance loan amount in respect of the car loan,” said the commission comprising president BS Ramachandra, members Chandrashekar S Noola and H Kumbhar.
The complainant purchased a car taking a loan of Rs 5.45 lakh from TVS Credit in January 2019, and agreed to pay a monthly instalment of Rs 17,285 for a tenure of 42 months. He missed two EMIs for the months of October and November 2021. On December 7, 2021, unknown persons of TVS Credit forcibly took the car of the complainant from the middle of a road in Bengaluru.
Later, when he found that the vehicle was seized for default of payment of EMIs, he lodged a complaint with the police. Subsequently, when that did not yield any result, the complainant approached TVS Credit and requested that the car be handed over, and also agreed to pay the balance loan amount.
TVS Credit dodged the matter by giving one or other reason, finally, the complainant came to know that the car was sold to a third party. The complainant raised the objection that TVS Credit had not followed procedure in order to seize and sell the vehicle by not giving prior intimation or serving notice in advance.
The commission noted that TVS Credit, even though represented by the advocate, has not chosen to file its version in support of its defence, which shows it is negligent and careless towards the complainant’s allegations.