PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 119/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Shivanee Prasad Lenka, Aged about 30 years,

C/O- Rudra Prasad Panda,

R/O-Near P.K. Park, LIC Colony, Sambalpur, Sadar,

Dist-Sambalpur-768002, Odisha.                                      ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. HDFC Bank (Head Office)

At- SenpatiBapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400013, represented through it managing Director and Chief Executive Officer.

2. HDFC Bank ( Regional Office) Sambalpur,

At-Ground Floor, Nachram, Snehpuri Colony, Nayapara, Gol Bazar, Sambalpur, Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768001.

Represented through its Branch Manager.

3. HDFC ERGO, Sambalpur,

At-2^nd Floor, Indus Ind Bank  Building Opposite of LIC Division Office, Budharaja, Sambalpur,Odisha-768004.

Represented through is Manager/Authorized Representative.

....……….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. A.K.Mohanty, Adv.
2. For the O.P. No.1 & 2        :- Sri. A.K. Sahoo, Adv.
3. For the O.P.No.3                :- Sri. S. Mahapatra, Adv.

Date of Filing:02.04.2024,  Date of Hearing :06.08.2024,  Date of Judgement :23.09.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a Honda Amaze Car bearing No. OD-23L-3686 and availed loan from O.P.No.2 as per advise of the dealer. The financing Bank visited and assessed the 2^nd hand car as Rs. 6,70,000/- and complainant availed loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- making the rest amount down payment. Loan Agreement No. 143614638 was made and intimated through email dated 21.07.2023. EMI @ Rs. 12,296/- for 48 months fixed and down payment Rs. 2,18,870/- made.

Application for transfer of ownership in form No. 29 and 30 made.

In the loan Hypothecation Agreement the O.Ps have shown finance amount of Rs. 4,75,492/- @ 11.5% interest and the interest amount comes to Rs. 1,17,164/- and total payable Rs. 5,92,656/- for a period of 4 years w.e.f 07.09.2023 to 07.08.2027 with EMI Rs. 12,347/-.

At the time of asset verification the odometer was showing 21,000 Km, whereas from show-room it was ascertained 80,000 Km + had run and meter is tampered as 21,000 Km. The O.P.s have not properly valued the car and the accidental repair made. A new model car cost Rs. 9,00,900/- as on 10.03.2024 whereas the Bank assessed the 2^nd accident car as Rs. 6,73,000/- as on 21.07.2023. The Bank deliberately avoided inspecting documents of the car inorder to by pass the issue of repairs and maintenance carried out thereby deficient in service. The Bank failed to assess the vehicle as per rules.

2. The financing Bank, O.P.No.1 & 2 submitted that the Complainant approached the Bank for finance of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 4,75,492/- and entered into contract No. 143614638 and thereafter loan amount was disbursed. The Complainant agreed to pay 48 EMIs from 07.09.2023 to 07.08.2027 the other allegations are denied. The Bank has right to recover the dues and to repossess the vehicle in the event of default made by the Complainant. OD-23L-2686 was registered in the name of Zarima Wahab. Valuation made through valuer and the Bank agreed to finance Rs. 4,75,992/- in respect of used car. There was no any condition from the Bank for down payment of Rs. 2,18,870/-. Before purchase the Complainant was ensured about clause No.3 (page-1 filed by Complainant). After enquiry and verification the Complainant has purchased the vehicle. The dispute is with the seller. There is no deficiency on the part of the answering O.Ps.
3. O.P.No.3 insurer submitted that vehicle No. OD-23L-2686 is insured IFFCO-TOKIO G.I.C. ltd. vide policy No. ITG/83224165 for the period 26.12.2023 to 27.12.2024. It was previously insured with HDFC ERGO GIC Ltd. vide policy No. 2302205136626600000 for the period 28.12.2022 to 27.12.2023. The answering O.P. is not a necessary party.
4. Perused the documents filed by the parties. From the approval letter dated 21.07.2023 it reveals that loan agreement of Rs. 4,50,000/- was sanctioned @11.25% P.A. interest payable in 48 installaments with EMI Rs. 12,296/-. The value of the asset was shown Rs. 6,73,000/- while executing the loan hypothecation agreement. The principal amount was shown Rs. 4,75,492/- and interest payable Rs. 1,17,164/- total Rs. 5,92,656/- for the period 07.09.2023 to 07.08.2027. The Complainant alleged that agent of the Bank was collected documents from Complainant on 17.07.2023. The Bank approached loan on 21.07.2023 for Rs, 4,50,000/-. On 19.08.2023 Rs. 4,43,813/- was credited to the account of the Complainant and shown sanctioned amount Rs. 4,75,492/-. The O.P.No.1 & 2 also not explained why an excess amount of Rs. 31,619/- was shown in hypothecation agreement although sanction amount was Rs. 4,50,000/-.

The another point of allegation is that the O.P.No.1 & 2 assessed the asset @Rs. 6,73,000/- and the assessment report has not been filed although the O.Ps categorically admitted the facts of assessment before finance.

5. The financing Bank totally shifted the responsibility on the seller and it is the duty of purchaser to properly verify and enter into agreement. The seller has not been made party. In the other hand Complainant submitted that the odometer was showing 21,000 Kms at the time of verification of the asset. The Complainant came to know on 26.12.2023 that the vehicle has gone numerous repair and modifications in service centre. The vehicle had run 80,000 Km + by that date odometer manipulated/tampered to 21000 KM. It was the duty of Complainant before making choice of the vehicle was to examine in service centre. This work has not been done. The Complainant entered into agreement and after payment to the seller raised the question. The Complainant was ready to purchase the vehicle and accordingly the financier made the finance. So total responsibility can not be shifted to the financier. The Complainant without going details of the vehicle purchased the same and now can not shift the responsibility solely on the financier although the seller is a necessary party.
6. The responsibility of the financier O.P.No.1 & 2 is to the extent:

1. Not submitted the valuation report and financed the 2^nd hand vehicle.
2. Although sanctioned Rs. 4,50,000/- but hypothecation agreement made for Rs. 4,75,492/-/

From the aforesaid facts it can be concluded that the O.P.No.1 & 2 have collusively transferred the vehicle to the Complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1 & 2 and unfair trade practice.

7. The insurer is no way connected in the Complainant but made party as proforma O.P.No.3.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case following order is passed:

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed against O.P.No.1 & 2 and dismissed against O.P.No.3. For deficiency in service & unfair trade practice the O.P.No.1 & 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- within one month of this order. In case of non-payment the amount will carry 11.5% interest P.A. w.e.f. 19.08.2023 till realisation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23^rd day of Sept. 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.