State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission The Proprietor,Tvs Finance And Service ... vs Ashokkumar & ... on 9 February, 2022 1 IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI. PRESENT: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.267/2012 (F.A.No.935/2011 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai) (Against the order made in C.C.No.41/2007 dated 26.02.2010 on the file of the District Forum, Karur.) WEDNESDAY, THE 09th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 The Proprietor, TVS Finance and Service Limited, 4, Renga Complex, Karur Road, Chinthamani, Trichy 620 002. Appellant/2nd Opposite Party Vs 1. Ashokkumar, S/o Periyasamy, Pudutheru, Mayanoor, Krishnarayapuram Taluk. 1st Respondent/Complainant 2. The Proprietor, P.L.A.Sales Corporation, 12A, Covai Road, Karur. 2nd Respondent/1st Opposite Party Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party 1 : M/s.Anand Abdul & Vinodh Associates. Counsel for Respondent1/Complainant : M/s.A.Rajaram, Advocate. Counsel for Respondent2/Opposite Party2 : Givenup. 2 This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 07.12.2021 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following: ORDER THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/2nd opposite party under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Karur made in C.C.No.41/2007, dated 26.02.2010, allowing the complaint. 2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Karur. 3. The 2nd opposite party suffering by an order, directing the second opposite party to return the complainant's vehicle on payment of Rs.39,672/ by the complainant, if the complainant not willing to pay the said amount and get back the vehicle, the second opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.20,962/ paid by the complainant with 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint that is from 02.11.2007 till the date of realization. Further, directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.4000/ towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.1000/ towards cost of this complaint to the complainant in the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karur (hereinafter in short "District Forum") have preferred this appeal before this Commission. 4. The case of the complaint is as follows: The complainant has approached the first opposite party for the purpose of purchasing T.V.S. Victor, two wheeler for price. On 29.08.2003, the second opposite party has financed for the complainant 3 to purchase the T.V.S. Victor TN 47 K 6378 and took delivery of the same. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.16,006/ at the time of delivery of the said two wheeler. The complainant further agreed to pay the remaining amount by monthly instalments. The second opposite party received 10 unfilled blank cheques from the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle The second opposite party further received a cheque No.023490 of the Bank of India, Krishnarayapuram from guarantor, one Periasamy. The complainant paid an installment amount of Rs.480/ on 29.09.2003, Rs.1653/ on 08.10.2003, Rs.1650/ on 09.11.2003 and Rs.1,653/ on 01.12.2003 and obtained receipt for the same. Thereafter, the complainant was not able to pay the monthly installments continuously due to his illness. The second opposite party should have presented the unfilled blank cheque received from the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle for realization of the amounts towards the monthly installments when the complainant was not able to pay the monthly installments, as agreed by him. But the second opposite party did not present the said cheques for collection of money. On 03.06.2006, the second opposite party abruptly sent the henchmen or the rowdies to the home of the complainant and seized the TVS Victor of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties to receive the due balance pending for the two wheeler and to return his TVS Victor. But the opposite parties did not hear the request of the complainant and the opposite party did not reply for the complainant. No proper notice was given to the complainant to pay the installment dues. Therefore, the act of the opposite parti