Joseph Mathew filed a consumer case on 05 May 2023 against Bank of baroda in the Idukki Consumer Court. The case no is CC/10/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Jun 2023.
DATE OF FILING : 13.1.2020
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI
Dated this the 5th day of May, 2023
Present :
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT
SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER
SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER
CC NO.10/2020
Between
Complainant : Joseph Mathew, S/o. Mathew,
Vallimadathil House,
Arikkuzha P.O.,
Thodupuzah – 685 608.
(By Adv: Biju R. Naduviledathu)
And
Opposite Party : Bank of Baroda,
Thodupuzha Branch,
309 A, Valayanal Buildings,
Thodupuzha – Muvattupuzha Road,
Thodupuzha – 685 584.
(By Adv: C.M. Tomy)
O R D E R
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT
1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (the Act, for short). Complaint averments are briefly discussed here under :
Complainant had availed a vehicle loan in April 2016 of Rs.8,63,000/- from Thodupuzha branch of Bank of Baroda represented by its manager. Loan amount was repayable in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs.19,000/- . Loan period was to expire by April 2021. Though complainant was regularly remitting loan instalments, owing to two floods, there was default in payment of 4 instalments. As directed by bank, complainant had increased instalment payment from Rs.19000 to Rs.20000 and was regularly remitting the same. While so, in July, 2019, opposite party had informed him that instalment dues are to be cleared. Accordingly, in 2019 November, complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- and in December 2019, made a payment of Rs.10,000/-. He is prepared to remit further dues of Rs.20,000/- for 4 months and Rs.81,689/-. However, opposite party informed him that there is no need to pay further instalments as they are taking possession of the car. On 8.1.2020complainant was threatened by opposite party that the vehicle will be forceably repossessed. Though complainant had gone to office of opposite party, informed that he was willing to repay the loan instalments, opposite (cont….2)
party had again repeated the threat. The car is presently worth Rs.6 lakhs in open market. If opposite party takes possession of same, complainant will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence complainant prays for a prohibitory order against opposite party from taking possession of his Nissan Sunny car bearing Reg. No.KL-38E-8442. Opposite party should be directed to receive the loan amount in instalments from complainant. It should be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to complainant for deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation costs. Opposite party should be also directed to repay Rs.25,000/- realized in excess from complainant.
2. Complaint was taken on file. Upon notice, opposite party had entered appearance. However, it had failed to submit written version within the statutory time limit. Therefore, IA No.1/2022 was filed by counsel for opposite party to condone delay of 127 days occasioned in the filing of written version. He had also filed RP No.1/2022 for reviewing the order passed on 29.3.2021 to restore the case and to admit the written version filed by opposite parties. Both applications were dismissed by this Commission on 7.12.2022. Thereafter case was posted for evidence. No evidence was tendered by complainant despite repeated postings for evidence. On 6.3.2023, which was the last day posted for evidence as finally, complainant had again sought time. Prayer was declined and evidence was closed after marking Ext.P1 which is copy of account statement of complainant. Opposite party was represented. However, no evidence was tendered by opposite party. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for complainant and opposite party. Now the point which arise for consideration are :
1) Whether complaint is maintainable ?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service ?
3) Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs prayed for ?
4) Final order and costs ?
3. Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :
Present complaint is filed under the Old Act as date of filing is 13.1.2020, before New Act of 2019 came into force. Going by definition of consumer and service provider given therein and considering complaint averments as such, we are of the view that the complaint is maintainable before this forum. Complainant has alleged that the opposite party, which is a banking service provider, has failed in provide due service to complainant. He contends that sufficient time for repayment of loan was not given to him,though he was entitled for the same and also for the reason that excess amount was collected from him towards loan availed. On the face of these allegations, it cannot be argued that the complaint is not maintainable.
Yet, it is a different matter altogether when it comes to proving these allegations. Though complainant claims that he defaulted in payment of loan arrears, pleadings are vague with regard to quantum of default committed by him. Though he claims that he (cont….3)
was prepared to pay arrears and continue to pay loan installments, he himself has stated that the loan period will expire by April 2021, till date after filing of this case, nothing was produced to show that complainant had made any remittance towards loan amount. Admittedly, going by complaint, payment of loan instalments were defaulted by complainant. Though he claims that only amounts, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the complaint are due, he has not produced any supporting documents in this regard. Ext.P1 is copy of statement of his bank account. However, we notice that the loan pertains to Mudra Yojan Loan. There is nothing to show that the statement of account relates to his car loan account. Pleadings in the complaint, would disclose that recovery proceedings were initiated as admittedly there was default in repayment of loan instalments. Complainant has not produced copy of loan agreement or had caused it to be produced by opposite party. Ordinarily such loans are granted upon hypothecation of vehicle and bank being a secured creditor will be entitled to invoke provisions of SARFAESI Act to take possession of vehicle. Attempted recovery of loan on the face of admitted default in payment cannot be termed as deficiency in service. There is no evidence to show that excess amount was paid towards loan dues by complainant. On the other hand there are arrears, the quantum of which is not clearly mentioned. Hence we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency from the side of opposite party. Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for. Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.
4. Point No.4
In the result, this complaint is dismissed under the circumstances, without costs. Parties shall take back extra sets of copies produced.
Pronounced by this Commission on this the 5th day of May, 2023
Sd/-
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER
Sd/-
SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER
Appendix :
Ext.P1 : Loan Account Statement.
Forwarded by Order,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.