Orissa

Cuttak

CC/17/2018

Prative Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Signatory,HDFC Bank LTD - Opp.Party(s)

A K Mishra

27 Aug 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C. No.17 of 2018

 

Prativa Das,

D/o: Pranakrushna Das of Jaripada,

PO:Urali,N.I.U.P.School,

Dist:Cuttack,mPin-753001.                                                                           … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.         Authorized Signatories,

H.D.F.C Bank Ltd.,A/62/1,

Nayapalli,Bhubaneswar.

 

2.         Branch Manager,

H.D.F.C Bank Ltd.,

Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack-753001..                                                      … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     05.02.2018

Date of Order:   27.08.2019

 

For the complainant        :   Mr. A.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.     

For the O.P.No.1&2 .       :   Mr. R.Roy,Adv. & Associates.   

      

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

The complainant has filed this case alleging therein deficiency in service against the O.Ps and seeking relief against them in terms of her prayer made in the complaint petition.

1. The facts of the complainant’s case in short are that the complainant was working as a mistress in a private school and needed a two wheeler for her day today work.  As such she purchased a motorcycle for Rs.47,685/- out of which she made down payment of Rs.17,425/- and the balance amount was paid to the dealer directly by the O.P No.1 bank.  The registration No. of the said vehicle is OD-05-P-6076.

It is stated that the O.P took signature of the complainant on a blank form and intimated orally to her that monthly installment of the said loan is Rs.2,015/-which is to be paid by the first week of each month.As such the complainant regularly paid 15 numbers of E.M.Is in time and thereafter she could not pay the E.M.I for three months due to financial stringencies.

On the fateful day on 16.11.17 when the husband of the complainant was going towards Bhubaneswar on the said motorcycle some unknown persons forcibly snatched away that vehicle due to default in payment of E.M.Is by the complainant.Copy of the seizure list was not handed over to him despite his request.

On 27.12.17 the complainant and her husband had come to O.P.1’s office to take back the seized motorcycle on payment of legitimate dues.Instead of releasing the vehicle, the O.P.1 handed over a letter of demand of Rs.28,747/- to her for payment.It is also stated that unless, the entire dues as claimed on different heads was paid, the vehicle in question could not be released.The photo copy of the said letter of demand has been filed and marked as Annexure-1.On 30.12.17 the complainant sent a representation to O.P.1 for reconsideration of the release of the vehicle and to reduce the extra charges made in the letter of demand.Copy of the said representation has been filed and marked as Annexure-2.O.P No.1 remained silent in the matter.Subsequently when the complainant had gone to the office of O.P., she was informed that the said vehicle had already been sold.The complainant was taken aback.Thereafter she requested the O.Ps to supply her name and address of the purchaser and the price at which the said vehicle had been sold.The O.Pdid not respond to the complainant but astonishingly when the complainant had gone to the office of O.P found that the said vehicle had been kept in an open space carelessly and the condition of the said vehicle if not taken care of would gradually deteriorate.It is stated that the above activities of the O.Ps are tantamount to deficiency in service on their part.It has already caused much hardship and mental agony to her.Thereafter she filed a case against the O.Ps with a prayer to direct them to return the seized vehicle bearing No. OD-05-P-6076 as well as to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.20,000/- to her in the interest of justice.

2. Both the O.Ps after entering appearance have filed their written version and contested the case.  The material averments in the complaint petition having been traversed in the written version, it is stated that the facts which have not been specifically admitted be deemed to have been denied.  Interalia it is stated that the case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps in any manner.

It is also revealed from the written version that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and due to such defaults, the O.P bank after following due procedure of law has sold the seized vehicle.The letter intimating the complainant about the pre & post sale of the vehicle has been sent to her and photo copies of the above letters have been filed and marked as Annexure-A series.

In the above premises, it is stated that the case is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed in limini.

3. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the case record as well as the annexures enclosed to it.
4. The main question that falls for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and whether the seized vehicle (two wheeler) can be returned to the complainant as prayed for.  Admittedly the date of seizure of the said vehicle is 16.11.17.  In the presale notice dt.16.11.17 vide Annexure-A it has been intimated to the complainant that the outstanding arrear against her was Rs.28,747/- which ought to be paid to the O.P before 30.11.17.  In fact the outstanding dues have not been paid.  From the post sale letter it is revealed that Rs.20,000/- was the sale proceeds received by the O.P. after putting  the said vehicle to auction and that amount was adjusted against the outstanding dues.  In the said post sale letter, the complainant was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.8,747/- within 10 days from the date of this letter failing which the O.P would be constrained to proceed legally against her.

There is an agreement to this effect entered into by the parties which contains the terms and conditions of the agreement.None of the parties has filed the original agreement or authenticated copy of the same.But it is not disputed anywhere by the complainant that in the event of defaults in payment of E.M.Is, the O.P. is entitled to take repossession of the vehicle in question and put it to auction.Mere submission made by the learned advocate for the complainant that she had gone to the office of the O.P after the incident and found the said vehicle parking in a place in the office premises of the O.P. is not satisfactory.This statement is completely unsubstantiated.On the other hand the stand taken by the O.P as stated above is corroborated by the documents, contents of which have not been assailed satisfactorily.

In that view of the matter, it is held that there is no deficiency in service proved against the O.Ps.Hence ordered;

                                                                                ORDER

The case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 27^th day of August,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                           President.

                                                             

                                                                                                                   (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)