Haryana

StateCommission

A/395/2015

ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAGAT RAM - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP PURI

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      395 of 2015

Date of Institution:      29.04.2015

Date of Decision :       09.02.2016

 

ICICI Bank Limited, Near Aggarsen Chowk, Ambala City, through Shri Dinesh Garg, Manager Legal.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Bhagat Ram s/o Sh. Malik Ram, House No.282, Kahar Mohalla, Babyal, District Ambala.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Raj Kumar Singh s/o Sh. Jagdish Singh, Resident of 9-A, Shiv Pratap Nagar (Mahesh Nagar) Ambala Cantt.

3.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt.

Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent No.1- Bhagat Ram, in person.

                             None for respondent No.2.

                             Shri P.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                               

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

ICICI Bank Limited-Opposite Party No.2, is in appeal against the order dated March 18^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’). Ambala, in Complaint No.208 of 2011.  

2.      Raj Kumar Singh-Opposite Party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein), purchased a car bearing registration NoHR-01N-6080, Maruti 800, by raising loan from ICICI Bank and the car was under HPA with ICICI Bank as collateral security. Raj Kumar Singh, was not regular in paying the installments.  On 31^st December, 2007 Deed of Assignment of loan was executed between ICICI Bank Limited and Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited-opposite party No.3. As per Deed of Assignment, the loan outstanding against Raj Kumar Singh was also transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited.   

3.      Raj Kumar Singh sold the car to Bhagat Ram-complainant/respondent No.1 on August 4^th, 2010, without repaying the loan amount.  So, the car could not be transferred in the name of complainant because the outstanding loan amount was not paid and there was HPA entry in the Registration Certificate in favour of ICICI Bank.   Alleging it deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The opposite party No.1, in his reply stated that the opposite party No.2 was bound to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) as the entire loan amount was paid by him to the opposite party No.2 but the same was not issued inspite of repeated requests. It was further pleaded that the complainant had made part payment of the consideration amount of the car and the remaining amount was to be paid on getting the NOC from the opposite party No.2. It was made clear to the complainant that the entire loan amount had been cleared; the NOC was awaited and the same would be handed over to the complainant to get the car transferred in the name of the complainant, however, the opposite party No.2 did not issue the NOC.

5.      In its separate reply, the opposite party No.2 pleaded that the opposite party No.1 had not paid the outstanding loan amount, therefore, the NOC was not issued. The opposite party No.1 was not competent to sell the car without the consent of the opposite party No.2 as the loan amount was not cleared.

6.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited-Opposite Party No.3, in its reply stated that a sum of Rs.58449.44 was due against the opposite party No.1 as on 20^th November, 2013 with respect to the loan of car. It was admitted that the loan of the opposite party No.1 was taken over by the opposite party No.3.

7.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and issued direction as under:-

                   “(i)     OP No.2 is directed to issue No Objection Certificate as well as Form No.35 and other requisite documents in favour of OP No.1 Raj Kumar qua deletion of entry of HPA/hypothecation etc entered in favour of OP No.2 Bank in the RC of vehicle bearing Registration No.HR01-N-6080 and after receipt of same, OP No.1 is also directed to complete the formalities necessitated for transferring the vehicle in question in the name of complainant.

                   (ii)      OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges etc.”     

 

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order and has urged that Raj Kumar Singh-opposite party No.1 was not regular in paying the installments of loan.  On 31^st December, 2007 Deed of Assignment of loan was executed between ICICI Bank Limited and Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited-opposite party No.3. As per Deed of Assignment, various loans outstanding including loan against Raj Kumar Singh, was also transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited.  The car was sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant without paying the outstanding loan amount.  It was further urged that since the loan was transferred by ICICI Bank to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, so, it was Kotak Mahindra Bank, who was to issue the No Objection Certificate and not ICICI Bank. 

9.      The contention raised is tenable. ICICI Bank vide their letter dated 7^th Aapril, 2008 had informed Raj Kumar Singh-borrower of having assigned his loan account in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. It was for the complainant to see that whether the charge upon vehicle was deleted or not from the Registration Certificate before he purchased the vehicle. Copy of Registration Certificate is on file as Exhibit C-1. It finds entry “HPA in favour of ICICI Bank”. The complainant without verifying, purchased the vehicle from the opposite party No.1-Raj Kumar Singh. Till the loan amount is fully cleared, no direction can be issued to issue No Objection Certificate. As per own allegation of the complainant, he had purchased the vehicle on 4^th August, 2010. Raj Kumar Singh-opposite party No.1 is trying to derive the benefit that since the amount was shown NIL in his account with ICICI Bank, therefore, the entire loan should be deemed to have been paid. ICICI Bank has reduced balance to NIL by transferring of loan account to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and not on account of repayment of loan by the borrower. Opposite Party No.2 – ICICI Bank had written to the borrower that they had assigned the loan account to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited.  Without obtaining NOC either from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited or ICICI Bank, Consumer Fora can not direct to issue NOC.  The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint, hence the impugned order cannot sustain. However, in case the complainant pays the amount due, the ICICI Bank/Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, shall issue NOC.

10.    As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 09.02.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL