JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. 2. The complainant, Shri Abhaya Kumar Dash purchased a second hand Toyota Qualis from Ranjit Keshari Sahoo. On 15.12.2004 and 13.1.2005, the opposite party/HDFC Bank Ltd. approved the loan amount and disbursed the loan of Rs.3,50,000/-. The EMI was fixed at Rs.14,180/- for thirty months. 23 cheques were honoured. On 17.3.2005, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in favour of Shri Abhaya Kumar Dash, the complainant. The previous owner of that car was Shri Ranjit Keshari Sahoo. On 20.3.2007, the police seized the said vehicle, as a stolen vehicle, which was stolen from Maharasthra. The complainant informed the petitioner/bank but they did not come to his rescue. 3. According to the OP/Bank, it has re-financed the vehicle to the complainant. The said vehicle was previously registered in the name of one Shri Ranjit Keshari Sahoo, who had purchased the same being financed by the OP/Bank. The Bank had re-financed the vehicle for Rs.3,50,000/- and out of the same, amount of Rs.98,270/- was paid to Shri Ranjit Keshari Sahoo for pre-closure of his account. -3- Since the petitioner/bank failed to compensate the complainant, therefore, the complainant after serving a notice, filed a complaint before the State Commission. 4. The State Commission placed reliance on Sections 23 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act and directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs.3,54,000/-, which had been collected by it from the complainant, with interest @10% per annum and the petitioner was asked to return the unutilized cheques which were yet to be encashed. The State Commission also imposed costs of Rs.55,000/- upon the OP as compensation. The record shows that the complainant had used this vehicle for a period of two years and the State Commission did not take account of that. 5. This must be borne in mind that this is a case of two agreements, i.e. car purchase agreement and loan agreement. Car purchase agreement is different from loan agreement. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has been harping on the point that the complainant was assured by the manager of the Bank that all documents were correct but she admitted that there is no such endorsement in writing. -4- 6. It is true that on the recommendation of the Bank Manager in his final capacity and after verifying the documents, he had sanctioned the loan but there is not an iota of evidence which may go to show that the OP informed him that he had thoroughly scrutinized the documents pertaining to the vehicle from the office of the R.T.O, Cuttack and there is no evidence that he assured the complainant that the car was found to be in order and there would be absolutely no problem for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. 7. It is also interesting to note that the complainant approached the Bank through his agency, namely, Fortune Capital. It is also surprising to note that neither Ranjit Keshari Sahoo nor Fortune Capital was made a party in this case. They appear to be the persons responsible for the same. 8. The petitioner has no connection with the purchase of the car. Shri Ranjit Keshari Sahoo has to account for the vehicle. The agreement to purchase a car with Shri Ranjit Keshari Sahoo is void but not the loan agreement entered into between the parties. The OP -5- is not beneficiary. It has advanced the money for loan from its own pocket. The Bank has not earned any amount from the void agreement. The complainant has purchased the car on its own peril. It cannot wriggle out of the responsibility of not being a vigilant purchaser. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. The appellant could not return the cheque. The complainant is bound to pay the same. He can recover the money from the complainant and Fortune Capital. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. | 
