Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/61/2017

H. Thippesha, S/o Hanumasnthappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

. The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayanarao

07 Oct 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:14/06/2017

DISPOSED ON:07/10/2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 61/2017

 

DATED: 7^th OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	H. Thippesha, S/o Hanumanthappa, Age 38 Years, Owner of Tata India Car Bearing Reg. No.KA-16-B-8247, R/o Maruthi Nagar, Gopalpura Road, Near Raju Provision Stores, Chitradurga Town.   (Rep by Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, B.D. Road Branch,  Chitradurga-577501.   2. The Regional Manager, Regional Office, N.ZH-4 Road, Saraswathipuram Road, Chitradurga-577501   3. The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Head Office, Gandhi Nagar, Bellary-583103.   (Rep by Sri.A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate)

 

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs not to alienate or create charge over the Tata Indica Car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 B-8247 till disposal of the complainant and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is a driver by profession.  On 01.06.2015 complainant has purchased Tata India car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 B-8247 for running the same for taxi purpose under the hire purchase agreement from OP No.1 vide loan A/c No.69515110035613 by borrowing loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and availed subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Dr. Ambedkar Development Corporation Ltd., Chitradurga by investing an amount of Rs.78,540/-. After payment of Rs.4,27,662/- through cheque bearing No.035164 of OP No.1, the said car was taken delivery by the complainant and registered with RTO, Chitriadurga.  The complainant was paying regular loan installments.  But, due to heavy competition in the taxi field, he was unable to pay the 4-5 installments.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has purchased the above said taxi for his livelihood.  The complainant was agreed to pay the installments to OP No.1 from April 2017.  The complainant further requested the OP No.1 that, he will pay the loan installments from August 2017.  But, OP No.1 refused to grant time and seized the said taxi on 09.06.2016 without following any procedural aspects.  It is further submitted that, the complainant and his family members are entirely depending on the earnings of the said taxi.  The cause of action for the complaint arose in the first week of June 2016 when the OP seized the vehicle without following procedural aspects from the custody of the complainant.  The complainant has repaid Rs.1,00,000/- towards loan amount and Rs.1,00,000/- towards subsidy from Government.  The complainant has to pay Rs.2,27,000/- to the OP No.1.  But, the OP No.1 has shown excess, abnormal and global amount to be paid by the complainant.  They have levied compound interest which is not sustainable under law and the same is deficiency of service.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint with cost. 

3.      On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate and filed version.   It is submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is true that, the complainant has purchased Tata Indica car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 B-8247 to run the same as taxi, the same was being used for commercial purpose and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer.  It is true that the complainant has availed Bank loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP No.1 and availed subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Development Corporation Ltd.  It is false to say that, the complainant has invested Rs.78,540/-.  It is true that, the OP No.1 has issued D.D bearing No.035164 for Rs.4,27,662/- in favour of Tata Dealer and the dealer has delivered the vehicle and was running for taxi purpose. It is true that, the OP has seized the car from the possession of the complainant due to non-payment of installments as agreed by the complainant.   It is false to say that, OP No.1 has not followed the procedure before seizing of the vehicle.  It is false to say that, the entire family depending upon the earnings of the above said car.  It is false to say that, the complainant has to pay Rs.2,27,000/- to the OP No.1.  The several allegations made by the complainant in his complaint are all false.  It is further submitted that, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Development Authority has send the subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and received the margin amount of Rs.78,540/- from the complainant and OP No.1 has sanctioned Rs.3,00,000/- in total Rs.4,78,540/- through DD in favour of the dealer.  The complainant was agreed to repay the said loan amount within 60 months installments.  The complainant has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The OP No.1 has demanded the due installments from the complainant.  The OP No.1 has followed the procedure before seizing of the vehicle.      After seizure of the vehicle the OP No.1 has send the notice to the complainant for payment.  The complainant has failed to pay the amount.  The OP No.1 has published the auction notice along with other seized vehicles and the same was published in the State level papers and conducted auction.  After obtaining the stay order from this Forum till 30.06.2017, the OP No.1 postponed the auction proceedings.  The stay order was not extended after 30.06.2017.  Now the complainant is still due for a sum of Rs.4,89,390/- as on 30.06.2017.  Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 & A-2 were got marked.  On behalf of OPs, one Sri.T.P. Jagadeesh, Senior Manager OP No.2 has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 document has been got marked.  

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that:

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in seizing the car and sold the same in public auction and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- In Negative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, on 01.06.2015 complainant has purchased Tata India car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 B-8247 to run the same as taxi under the hire purchase agreement from OP No.1 vide loan A/c No.69515110035613 by borrowing loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and availed subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Dr. Ambedkar Development Corporation Ltd., Chitradurga by investing an amount of Rs.78,540/-.  After payment of Rs.4,27,662/- through cheque bearing No.035164 of OP No.1, the said car was taken delivery by the complainant and registered with RTO, Chitriadurga.   The complainant was paying regular loan installments.  But, due to heavy competition in the taxi field, he was unable to pay the 4-5 installments.  The complainant and his family members are entirely depending on the earnings of the said taxi.  The complainant has repaid Rs.1,00,000/- towards loan amount and Rs.1,00,000/- towards subsidy from Government.  The complainant has to pay Rs.2,27,000/- to the OP No.1.  The advocate for complainant argued that, the OPs have seized the vehicle without issuing the seizure notice without following the sale procedure as per law.    

9.      In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like loan account pass book marked as Ex.A-1 and seizing letter dated 09.06.2016 issued by the OP to the complainant marked as Ex.A-2.    

10.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OPs and admitted that, the complainant has purchased Tata Indica car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 B-8247 to run the same as taxi, the same was being used for commercial purpose and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer.  It is further argued that the complainant has availed Bank loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP No.1 and availed subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Development Corporation Ltd.  OP No.1 has issued DD bearing No.035164 for Rs.4,27,662/- in favour of Tata Dealer and the dealer has delivered the vehicle and running for taxi purpose. The OP has seized the car from the possession of the complainant due to non-payment of installments as agreed by the complainant.   OP No.1 has followed the procedure before seizing of the vehicle.  The complainant has to pay Rs.2,27,000/- to the OP No.1.   Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Development Authority has send the subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and received the margin amount of Rs.78,540/- from the complainant and OP No.1 has sanctioned Rs.3,00,000/- in total Rs.4,78,540/- through DD in favour of the dealer.  The complainant was agreed to repay the said loan amount within 60 months installments but, not followed the procedure as contemplated under the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The OP No.1 has followed the procedure before seizing of the vehicle.   After seizure of the vehicle the OP No.1 has send the notice to the complainant for payment.  The complainant has failed to pay the amount. 

11.    In support of their contention, the OPs have filed affidavit evidence of its Senior Manager examined as DW-1 and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like statement of account extract of the complainant loan account marked as Ex.B-1.

12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant has purchased the Tata Indica Taxi by availing loan from the OPs.  It clearly made out that, the complainant failed to repay the amount sanctioned by the OPs and became defaulter.  As per the procedure, the OPs has seized the vehicle and as per procedure the OPs have sold the vehicle in a public auction.  The contention taken by the complainant that, the OPs have seized the vehicle without issuing any seizure notice and sold the vehicle without following the procedure as contemplated under law, is not correct.  But, the OPs have followed the procedure before seizing and sold the vehicle as per law.  The complainant was present before the Forum and undertake to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 23.09.2017 and Rs.10,000/- will  be paid  within 5^th of October 2017 but, he has failed to obey the direction issued by this Forum.  After that, the OP No.1 has sold the vehicle in public auction. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.          

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 07/10/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. T.P. Jagadeesh, Senior Manager of OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Copy of loan account pass book
02	Ex-A-2:-	Copy of seizing letter dated 09.06.2016 issued by the OP to the complainant marked as Ex.A-2.

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Statement of loan extract of the complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**