deficiency’ in service and costs for omission to give the Complainant a proper notice before taking repossession of the vehicle.‘

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/10/deficiency-in-service-and-costs-for.html

The District Forum was not justified in directing the Financier

to pay the Complainant Rs.2,23,335/- being the entire amount paid

by the Complainant to the Financier from the inception as well as the

payment of Rs.1,04,000/- made by the Complainant to the dealer

along with damage of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.1,000/-

after the Complainant had held and used the vehicle for almost a

year. The Complainant, admittedly a defaulter, has in effect, been

allowed free use of the vehicle for about a year, plus damages, for an

error in the notice of repossession, without considering the prejudice,

if any, caused to the complainant by the error and consequential non

receipt of the notice, and without making any assessment of the loss,

if at all, to the Complainant by reason of the error/omission.

 For the reasons discussed above, the impugned orders of the

National Commission, the State Commission and the District Forum,

under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be sustained and

the same are set aside.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Financier shall,

however, pay a composite sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant

towards damages for ‘deficiency’ in service and costs for omission to

give the Complainant a proper notice before taking repossession of

the vehicle.