. .. . - . . 100/2013 : 15/04/2013 : 01/08/2013 : 15/03/2014
---------------------------------------------- ., ....... ( . ) . .... , .. .. : . : .
1 . . . .8 . .1 .
2. - . .10,50,000/- . . 45/1087 .23/8/11 . , . .31,050/- 48 7 .2,17,750/- .
3. .
1. - . 80,967/-
2. - . 32,000/-
3. - . 3,500/-
4. , - .2,47,000/-
5. , , - . 26,000/-
6. - . 14,250/-
7. 7 - .2,17,750/-
8. - . 15,000/-
----------------------------- .6,36,467/- , . . . . .9/7/12 . . .
4. , , ... . 985/2012 . . . . . .6/12/12 . , . .
5. . . , , .50,000/- .
6. .2 , .4 20 . , , , , ..5 10 , , , , , , , , . .
7. , . ? 1. . ? 2. . ? 3. .
4. .
8. . 45/1087 . .23/8/11 . .4/1 , .4/2 .20/8/11 , .4/3 , .4/5 4/10 .4/11 . / . . - . - . . . . . Sapna Photostat Vs. Excel Marketing Corpn. & Anr. 2011 (2) CPR 35 (NC) If a person indulges in a commercial activity for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment then, he continues to be a consumer in terms of C.P. Act. 2009 (9) Supreme Court cases 79 Madankumar Singh Vs. Dist. Magistrate, Sultanpur & Ors. A Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) Consumer and Commercial purpose Definitions of, interpreted Appellant purchasing a truck to earn his livelihood by means of self-employment - held notwithstanding appointment of a driver to ply to said truck, appellant would still be a consumer allowing the appeal with costs, the Supreme Court., .2 3
9. .8 . . . .
10. .1 .4/1 .., .5/8/11 ... 1613 1 .5,000/- ... 1613/42 .. 697 . .4/2 .20/8/11 50270142000R) LPT 1613 4225 4x2 1210 FACE RHD FU .1005300.65/- (12.5 ) .1,25,662.96/- .11,30,967/- . . MAT 373348b7H37447 Engine No. 697TC 69 HYY 121308 . .. () .. . . .4/3 .22/8/11 21/8/15 . .1 .4,551/- . .4/4 .28/8/11 . 1613 . , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , 11 , , , 20 , , . . 30 , , -, , , , , , , .2,47,000/- . .4/13 - .4/14 .
11. . 11,30,967/- .2,47,000/- . 45/1087 . .4/5 4/11 . .986025 12000 878502 .15,000/-, 1302493 .4,500/-, 891397 .31,050/-, 986040 .10,000/-, 1015803 .21,000/-, .93,550/- . - .1/10/11 .31,050/, .31/10/11 .31,050/- .29/11/11 .31,050/- .3402, 3403, 3404 .93,150/- . .1,86,700/- . , , , .1,86,700/- . 100 . . - / 5 .80,967/- . . (General transaction) . .25,000/- . .10,50,000/- . .11,30,967/- . . . .4/15 .30/09/12 .25,000/- . .4/2 - .. .11,30,967/- . .10,50,000/- . .80,967/- , . . .25,000/- .5,000/- . .80,967/- lawful presumption . . / . .
12. .2 3 . , . . . .09/07/12 . , ....985/2012 . -10-
13. .10 . .27/09/12 . .03/12/12 . .1 .2 .03/10/12 . .. . . . .1 , . .4/16 . .4/17 .06/12/12 - , ., . , .
14. . .4/18 .4/19 ... . , , . . . (Due Process of Law) . , .
15. 7 .2,17,750/- . .93,550/- .93,150/- .1,86,700/- . .25,000/-, .2,47,000/-, .4,551/- . .5,000/- .4/1 . . 9/7/2012 / . .4/4 - . . 11 .80,967/- . . . (Due Process of Law) ? . . .
16. . (General Transaction) (Due process of law) ? . . -11-
17. . , , , , , , , , , . . . , . / .
18. . . , , . .. . ... .
19. . . CPJ-2007 III 161(NC) CITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD. Vs. S. VIJAYLAMXI- -(iii) Consumer Protection Act 1986-Section 21(b)-Hire Purchase Decided on 27.07.2007 Agreement-Default in payment of loan-14 days time given for making one-time settlement-Vehicle seized forcefully before expiry of said time Sold No notice given before repossession and sale of vehicle Procedure prescribed for repossession not followed Unjust to direct consumer to pay outstanding balance amount when vehicle repossessed by force and sold without prior notice- OP liable to pay market value of vehicle with interest @ 9 % -Compensation-Punitive damages awarded by State Commission set aside. . . . - (2012) I SCC CITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD. Vs. S. VIJAYLAMXI -12- 2007 STPL(LE) 37811 SC-MANAGER, I.C.I.C.I.BANK LTD Vs. PRAKASH KAUR & ORS -(B) Hire-purchase-Default installments-Forcibly taking possession of Decided on 26.02.2007 vehicle by Bank-such practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged-Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles instead of taking resort of strong-arm tactics-Bank cannot employ goondas to take possession by force. ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Khirodkumar Behera (2007CTJ 631 (CP) (SCDRC) . ,, . Repossession of vehicle-Bank allegedly repossessed the vehicle without even sending a notice to him - Agreement required the bank to issue 15 days notice demanding the loanee to make payment Therefore theseizure of the vehicle on the non-payment of installments held to be arbitrary illegal and uncalled for. City Corp Maruti Finance Ltd. V/s S.Vijayalaxmi (2007 CTJ 1145 (CP) NCDRC . ... -13- Repossession of vehicle Hire purchase agreements When a vehicle is purchased by a person after borrowing money from a money lender/financier/banker, he is the owner of the vehicle unless its ownership is transferred It is not permissible for the Money lender/banker to take possession of the vehicle by the use of force Employing musclemen to repossess the vehicle cannot be permitted in a society where there is an effective Rule of Law Where the vehicle has been forcibly seized and sold by the financier/banker, it would be just and proper to award reasonable compensation.
20 . .377/2005 . . . .07/10/2005 . .21/02/2008 . . .. , .1080/2008 .09/09/2010 . , . . .97/2011 .
21. .. 45/1087 . . . .
22. 7 .2,17,750/- . .93,550/- .93,150/- .1,86,700/- . .25,000/-, .2,47,000/-, .4,551/- . .4/1 .5,000/- . .25,000/- .5,000/- . .5,19,218/- .80,967/- . .9/7/12 .... 9 . , , . . . .10 .... 985/12 .1 .2 .3/10/12 . . . . , . , . . -14- .50,000/- . . . . .50,000/- .5,000/- .
1. .
2. 22 5,19,218/- .9/7/2012 ....9 % -15-
3. 50,000/- .
4. 5,000/- .
5. 45 -16- . 15/03/2014 ( ) ( . ) ( .. ) [ A.V. Deshpande] PRESIDENT [ Smt.V.N.Shinde] MEMBER [ Smt.M.Kulkarni] MEMBER -17-
Comments