IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of October, 2010
Filed on 28.10.08
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.249/08
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Babu, The Branch Manager,
S/o Divakaran, State Bank of India,
Kandathil Veedu, ADB Branch,
Punnapra, Alappuzha Allappuzha.
(By Adv.R.Rajendraprasad) (By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant, on 1st March 2005 availed a loan amount of Rs.4,75,000/-(Rupees four lacs seventy five thousand only) from the opposite party for the purpose of purchasing a Mini Lorry. The complainant had mortgaged two others' properties for the said loan. The loan amount was to be paid off in 84 equal monthly installments. The complainant was paying off the said loan without any default. In the meantime, due to unexpected business collapse and ailment affliction, the complainant was constrained to cause default in payment of the installment amount. When matters stood thus, on 18th March 2007 night two hooligans, on the instruction of the opposite party forcefully took away the complainant's vehicle. The opposite party was given sufficient collateral for the loan amount availed by the complainant. The opposite party acted in violation of RBI norms. The opposite party inflicted enormous monetary and mental woes to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. Notice was sent. The opposite party turned up and filed version in detail. The opposite party contends that the complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands. The complainant committed willful default of huge amount. The vehicle purchased with the loan is hypothecated with the bank. As such the said vehicle is the primary security of the bank over which the bank has due right. The opposite party made repeated request through letters and otherwise to the complainant to clear off the due amount with the bank. Notwithstanding this, the complainant was disinclined either to regularize or to close the loan account. Having no other way out, the opposite party was constrained to seize the vehicle of the complainant. The opposite party acted in compliance with law, the opposite party asserts. The complainant lodged a petition before the SI of Police Punnapra, and also moved a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalappuzha. The opposite party approached the Hon'ble High Court and got the said complaint stayed. The seized vehicle of the complainant was sold in public auction and the amount thereof was duly credited to the complainant's account. Still an amount of Rs.3,42,352.94/-(Rupees three lacs forty two thousand three hundred fifty two and ninety four paisa only) is due from the complainant. To recover the same the opposite party had preferred a suit before the Sub Court, Alappuzha, and the same has been decreed. The complainant has suppressed all these material facts with the surreptitious intention to prevent the opposite party from enjoying the fruits of the decree passed in its favor, the opposite party forcefully contends. The complainant is disentitled to any of the relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party asserts.
2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1 and the documents Exbts. Al to A9 were marked. On the side of the opposite party its manager was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbts. Bl to B15 were marked.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the questions come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service by the vehicle being seized?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. Admittedly, the complainant availed the loan amount for the purpose of purchasing a Mini Lorry. Equally conceded that the complainant committed defaulted in payment, and the opposite party seized the said vehicle. As to this, the opposite party contends that the complainant availed the loan on hypothecation of the vehicle and on two person's personal guarantee. According to the opposite party, the vehicle being hypothecated with the opposite party, the same is its primary security. As such, the opposite party has every right to proceed first against the vehicle. The opposite party asserts that the vehicle was sold in public auction and the sale proceed was credited to the complainant's loan account. The complainant has not taken any steps to refute the version of the opposite party. What's more going by the materials placed on record by the opposite party, it is to be reasonably inferred that the complainant has suppressed material facts from this Forum. On a plain perusal of the evidence let in by the opposite party, it is visibly made out that the opposite party has strictly followed all the provisions of law while the vehicle of the complainant was seized. Exbt. B15 copy of the decree indisputably reveals that the decree has been passed against the complainant to get the balance amount due to the opposite party realized from the complainant, the sureties and their assets. In the light of the facts and circumstance elaborated above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has approached this Forum with the present complaint with a view to bypass the decree that has been passed against him. We have no hesitation to hold that the complaint has no merit at all and is liable to be dismissed.
From the facts and findings brought to light herein above, the complaint stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear with their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2010.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Babu.D (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The R.C Book of the vehicle Reg.No.KL04/S.860
Ext.A2 - The copy of the petition filed before the Ambalappuzha Judicial 1st Class
Magistrate
Ext. A3 - The Certificate of Goods Carriage Permit
Ext. A4 - The Certificate of Fitness Applicable in the case of Transport Vehicles only
Ext. A5 - The Tax Licence from the Motor Vehicles Department
Ext. A6 - The Licence granted under Section 4(3)(a) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1976
Ext. A7 - The Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule from the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Ext. A8 - The Telegram from the Postal Department of India
Ext. A9 - The Letter from the State Bank of India dated, 04.06.2007
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - C.Muralidhar (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The copy of Loan Application
Ext. B2 - The copy of Loan Sanction Letter dated, 01.03.05
Ext. B3 - The copy of Agreement of Medium Term Loan
Ext. B4 - The copy of the Agreement of Guarantee
Ext. B5 - The copy of the Letter dated, 13.02.06 to the complainant
Ext. B6 - The copy of the Letter dated, 03.06.06 to the complainant
Ext. B7 - The copy of the Letter dated, 13.02.07 to the complainant
Ext. B8 - The copy of the Letter dated, 15.02.06 to the complainant
Ext. B9 - The copy of the Telegram sent to the complainant
Ext. B10 - The copy of the Telegram sent to the S.I of Police
Ext. B11 - The copy of Inventory prepared
Ext. B12 - The copy of the Letter dated, 04.06.07 to the complainant
Ext. B13 - The copy of accounts of the complainant
Ext. B14 - The copy of order of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Crl..M.A.No.5416/2008
Ext. B15 - The copy of the Decree
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
