IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 3rd day of July, 2009
Filed on 07.02.09
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.49/09
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Madhusoodhanan.C.S, Branch Manager,
Vrindavanam, ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Varanam.P.O, Cherthala. 1st Floor, Karthika Towers,
YMCA, Alappuzha.
O R D E R
SRI.K.ANIRUDHAN ( MEMBER)
Sri.Madhusoodhanan has filed this complaint before the Forum on 07.02.09 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, ICICI Bank represented by its Branch Manager, Alappuzha. The main allegations of the complainant are as follows. He had availed a loan from the opposite party for the purchase of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL.4L-5949 vide Loan Agreement No.LAAPY00000784676. For the repayment of the loan amount he had entrusted 60 cheques worth Rs.5600/- each with the opposite party drawn on M/s.Federal Bank, Puthanngady Branch. It is alleged that all the above 60 cheques were encashed by the opposite party in time, in full satisfaction of the loan amount due to the opposite party’s Bank and that no amount is due to the opposite party by virtue of the said loan agreement. But on 17.03.08 he got a Lawyers notice from the opposite party stating that some of the above cheque were dishonoured by the Bank on presentment and demanded further payment. He sent a reply notice stating the true facts and requested to release the NOC and documents of the vehicle to him. But so far, he has not obtained the NOC and other documents of the vehicle from the opposite party. Hence this complainant seeking relief.
1. Notice was sent to the opposite party. But notice returned to the Forum stating the endorsement in the cover –“refused”- Considering the absence of the opposite party the Forums declared the opposite party as “Exparte” and proceded the matter.
2. considering the allegations of the complainant the forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the documents of the vehicle and NOC?
(3) Compensation and costs.
Issues 1 to 3:- Complainants has filed proof Affidavit in support of his case along with the documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A17 marked. Ext.A1 is the Advocates notice dated, 17.03.2008 of the opposite party to the complainant, stating the default of amount. Ext.A2 is the reply notice to the opposite parties dated, 27.09.2008 stating the fulfillment of payment of loan amount in time towards the full satisfaction of the amount and request to release the documents and NOC of the said vehicle.Ext.A3 is the notice of the complainant sent to the opposite party stating the whole matters. Ext.A4 is the acknowledgement card. Ext.A5 is the postal receipt. Ext.A6 is the notice of the Advocate sent by the complainant to the opposite party, which was returned to the Advocate of the complainant with endorsement “addressee left”. Ext.A7 is the statement of account from the Federal Bank, showing the collection of amounts. Ext.A8 is the statement of account of the opposite party relating to the remittance made by the complainant. Ext.A9 to A17 are the notices issued to the complainant by the opposite party.
3. We have carefully examined the entire matter of this case in detail and perused the documents produced by the complainant in ordinance. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement in connection with the Loan availed by the complainant, from the opposite party, the complainant had repaid the Loan amount by way of 60 cheques for an amount of Rs.5600/- each through the Federal Bank. But after the payment of the entire amount as per agreement, the opposite party had demanded further amount from the complainant by raising the issue of dishonoured cheque. Opposite party contended that the cheque No.628077 on 02.03.07 was dishonoured from the Bank. But as per the statement of the bank dated, 26.05.07, the cheque was collected on 05.03.07 from the bank of the complainant. So the dishonor of the cheque, as alleged by the opposite party cannot be accepted as a valid ground to retain the documents of the vehicle and the NOC. There is no justification on the side of the opposite party by retaining the documents of the vehicle, since the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount payable to the opposite party and that the complainant is not bound to remit any further amount to the opposite party. The whole action of the opposite party is highly illegal, unfair and unauthorized and the action of the opposite party will come with in the preview of grossest deficiency in since and culpable negligence. There is no bonafides on the part of the opposite party in realting the NOC to the complainant and refused to release the relevant documents to the complainant. After considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the opposite party has not shown any further attempt to release the documents of the said vehicle together with the NOC to the complainant in time. The entire action of the opposite party reveals the unfair trade practice and dereliction of duty. In this context it is to be noticed that even though the Forum has sent notice to the opposite party, and they have not accepted the notice and not cared to appearance before the Forum in order to state the details of the matter. This shows that the irresponsible attitude of the opposite party in such cases of loan matter. So the allegation raised by the complainant against the opposite party are to be treated as genuine. Since there is grossest deficiency in service culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to get compensation, punitive damages and costs from the opposite party. The complainant is fully entitled to get back the documents of the said vehicle and NOC from the opposite party. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant. So we are of the view that the complainant is to be allowed as prayed for.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite party to return all the records of the vehicle of the complainant bearing No.KL/4L/5949, together with the NOC, and pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for his mental agony, paid suffering inconvenience, physical strain, and harassment of the opposite party due to the grossest deficiency in service. Culpable negligence and unfair trade practice by way of willful refusal to release of the documents of the vehicle and NOC to the complainant in time, and further pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as punitive damages to the complainant and further pay a sum of RS.2,000/- as costs of the proceedings . We direct the opposite party to comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 3rd day of July 2009.
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Advocates notice
Ext.A2 - is the reply notice to the opposite parties
Ext.A3 - is the notice of the complainant
Ext.A4 - is the acknowledgement card
Ext.A5 - is the postal receipt
Ext.A6 - is the notice of the Advocate sent to the complainant to the opposite party
Ext.A7 - is the statement of account from the Federal Bank
Ext.A9 to A17 - are the notices issued to the complainant by the opposite party
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
