1.Mr.Shaik Mahaboob Basha, S/o.S.Salimiah V/S The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/1088/2010

The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Mr.Shaik Mahaboob Basha, S/o.S.Salimiah - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.J.Lokesh Reddy

19 Jul 2012

ORDER

First Appeal No. FA/1088/2010

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District None)

1. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited,

Alankar Plaza, Park Road, H.No.40/323, Kurnool

BEFORE:
	HONABLE MR. SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'ABLE MR. T.Ashok Kumar MEMBER

PRESENT:	Mr.J.Lokesh Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant 1
	M/s.S.Singh associates, Advocate for the Respondent 1

ORDER

BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.1088 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.129 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM KURNOOL

Between:

The Branch Manager
HDFC Bank Ltd., Alankar Plaza
Park Road, H.No.40/323,
Kurnool District-001

Appellant/ opposite party no.2

A N D

1. Mr.Shaik Mahaboob Basha S/o S.Salimiah
R/o H.No.57/66-D6, Ranga Reddy Gate
Kurnool City, Kurnool

Respondent/complainant

2. M/s Radhakrishna Toyota
Radhakrishna Automobile Pvt.Ltd.,
D.No.7-2-A5, Main Road, Sanath Nagar
Hyderabad-018

Respondent/ opposite party no.1

Counsel for the Appellant M/s J.Lokesh Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents Served

QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

THURSDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***

1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum whereby the appellant had been directed to refund the amount of `17,754/-, compensation for mental agony `1,000/- and costs `500/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. The first respondent approached the appellant in the month of December 2008 to avail loan for the purpose of purchasing Toyota Innova G-4 Model. The second respondent issued quotation in favour of the first respondent. The appellant bank agreed to extend financial aid. The first respondent entered into auto loan agreement whereunder the appellant bank sanctioned loan of `6 lakh in favour of the first respondent and as per the terms of the agreement the first respondent had to deposit a sum of `3 lakh as margin money. The first respondent issued 30 postdated cheques in favour of the appellant bank in discharge of the loan. The respondent expressed its inability to deliver the vehicle on or before 31.12.2008.

3. The first respondent said to have orally cancelled the order placed by him to the second respondent and that he had informed the appellant bank on 30.12.2008 that he was intending to cancel the loan agreement as also that the appellant bank said to have accepted the proposal for cancellation of the agreement extended by the first respondent alleging negligence on the part of the appellant bank that despite expression of his intention that he was going to cancel the agreement, the appellant bank had sent demand draft to the second respondent. The first respondent filed complaint stating that the appellant bank sending the demand draft to the second respondent by crediting the amount to the amount to the account of the second respondent without receiving margin money from him amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank and the second respondent retaining the amount constitutes unfair trade practice.

4. On behalf of the second respondent, it is contended that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties and that there is no relationship of consumer-service provider between the first respondent and the second respondent. It is contended that the first respondent had not approached the second respondent at any point of time and as such the vehicle could not be delivered to him. By obtaining quotation, the first respondent cannot become a customer of the second respondent. The second respondent had received amount of Rs.6 lakh on 31.12.2008 without any covering letter and the second respondent made correspondence with the appellant bank with a request to take back the amount. The appellant bank informed the second respondent that under mistake the amount was sent to the second respondent and requested the second respondent to send back the amount. The second respondent had sent back the amount on 7.3.2009 to the appellant bank. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the second respondent.

5. The claim was resisted on behalf of the appellant bank on the premise that the complaint is not maintainable. It is contended that the appellant bank sanctioned loan an amount of `6,00,000/- on 31.12.2008. The first respondent agreed to repay the amount with interest in 36 equated monthly instalments @ `21,740/- and issued 36 postdated cheques. The loan amount was disbursed on 31.12.2008 as per the instructions of the first respondent, to the second respondent and as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the appellant bank presented two cheques each for sum of `21,740/- as also the cheques were cleared. The second respondent returned the amount to the appellant bank in the month of March 2009 and on request the first respondent the loan was cleared and a cheque for `25,726/- was issued in favour of the first respondent after deducting an amount of `17,754/ towards loan processing fees, courier charges etc. The first respondent had not informed the appellant bank on 30.12.2008 about the cancellation of the order placed by him with the second respondent.

6. The first respondent had filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the opposite parties, the authorized representative of the opposite party no.1 and the Legal Manager of the opposite party no.2 filed their affidavits and the copy of loan agreement had been filed.

7. The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellant bank had not enclosed covering letter to the demand draft and that without any margin money being arranged from the first respondent, the appellant bank had sent the demand draft to the second respondent.

8. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misapprciation of fact or law?

9. The first respondent applying for loan for purchase of Toyota Innova in the month of December 2008 and the appellant bank sanctioning a sum of `6,00,000/- on execution of auto loan agreement by the first respondent are beyond any dispute. It was agreed in between the appellant bank and the first respondent that the appellant bank would pay `6 lakh and the first respondent would contribute `3 lakh as margin money towards the sale consideration of the vehicle, to the second respondent. On 30.12.2008 the first respondent informed his intention to the second respondent that he was not going to receive the vehicle as he was proceeding to cancel the booking order placed by him.

10. The appellant bank disbursed the loan amount to the second respondent on 31.12.2008. The first respondent has contended that he had instructed the appellant bank not to pay any amount under the auto loan agreement as he was proceeding to take steps for cancellation of agreement. No evidence in this regard had been adduced by the first respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant bank has submitted that the first respondent had not informed his intention to cancel the loan agreement till 31.12.2008 and as such the appellant bank had sent the demand draft for `6 lakh to the second respondent.

11. The second respondent’s contention is that the vehicle could not be delivered to the first respondent for, he did not come forward to take delivery of the vehicle and he expressed his intention not to proceed with the contract under the booking order. It is the contention of the second respondent that the appellant bank had not enclosed any covering letter to the demand draft that was sent on 31.12.2008. Insofar as the lack of information about the intention of the first respondent not to proceed further to purchase the vehicle is concerned, the appellant bank cannot be found fault with as the first respondent failed to give intimation of his intention to cancel the auto loan agreement by 31.02.2008 on which date the amount was paid to the second respondent.

12. The second respondent had received the amount of `6 lakh on 31.12.2008 and as there was no covering letter enclosed thereto and upon the instructions of the first respondent it had sent back the amount to the appellant bank on 7.3.2009. As there was specific instructions from the first respondent in regard to the cancellation of the order for purchase of the vehicle placed by him, it was incumbent upon the second respondent to return the amount to the appellant bank immediately and instead, the second respondent attempted to take shelter, under the demand draft for `6 lakh sent by the appellant bank was not enclosed with any covering letter. The second respondent cannot take such a plea in the light of the fact that there was an order placed by the first respondent and it is within its knowledge that the first respondent had availed loan from the appellant bank as also that the first respondent cancelled the order. As such, the second respondent had been at fault by retaining the amount for about two months without informing the first respondent nor returning the amount to the appellant bank.

13. For the foregoing reasons, there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank. The appellant bank, in terms of the auto loan agreement had encashed the two cheques submitted by the first respondent towards discharge of the proposed loan. In any view of the matter, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the appellant bank. What all negligence or deficiency in service is found on the part of the second respondent. The second respondent is liable to pay the amount of `17,754/- collected by the appellant towards process charges etc., from the first respondent. As the first respondent has not suffered any loss on account of the appellant bank remitting the amount of `6,00,000/- to the second respondent except the amount of `17,754/- and the second respondent sending it back to the appellant bank, the first respondent is not entitled to pay any interest on the amount and compensation.

14. In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum. The first opposite party is directed to pay an amount of `17,754/- and costs of `500/- to the complainant. The complaint against the second opposite party is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.