Haryana

Karnal

120/2014

Raj Kumar S/o Ram Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Vijay Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.K. Mehta

07 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORFE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KARNAL.

                                                                             Complaint  no.120 of 2014

                                                                             Date of instt. 02.05.2014

                                                                             Date of Decision 7.11.2016

 

Raj Kumar son of Shri Ram Lal resident of House no.162-R, Model Town, Karnal.

 

                                                                                       ……complainant.

 

                                                Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, Vijay Bank, Sector-12  Karnal.

2. Field Officer, Vijay Bank, Sector-12, Karnal.

3. A.G.M. Vijya Bank, SCO no.185/187 Sector-9-C, Chandigarh.

4. D.G.M. Vijya Bank, 41/2, M.G. Road, Banglore 560001.

 

                                                                                      …..opposite parties.

 

                             Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   Shri K.C.Sharma……….President.

                Shri Anil Sharma……….Member

 

Present:    Shri R.K.Mehta Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri K.P.Singh Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER

                  

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite parties for purchasing a car, vide loan account no.831408411000072. He had settled the loan account with the opposite parties on 29.10.2013 under the Special O.T.S. (one time settlement) scheme and paid the entire settled amount. At the time of settlement NPA amount was Rs.1,41,000/-, but the opposite party no.1 charged an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- by extending threat that if he would not pay the amount, then the car would be taken into possession. In the said amount of Rs.1,70,000/- the opposite party no.1 included Rs.15050/- as court fee and other legal charges. He asked the opposite parties no.1 and 2 for issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’ and form-35, so that Hire purchase entry could be got cancelled from the record of registration certificate of the car but the opposite parties no.1 and 2 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other.  On 15.3.2014, the opposite parties issued only ‘No Dues Certificate’ and form35 was not issued despite his repeated visits. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant had obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/-on 28.9.2009 for purchasing the car. He become defaulter and his account was declared as NPA. He did not submit the Registration Certificate of the car in the Bank. Even no inspection of the vehicle was got carried him for the reasons best known to him. He was given many opportunities to clear his outstanding dues, but he failed to pay the same. He was not even charged any penal interest so that his account could be regularized. After exhausting every opportunity the bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,25,458/- against the complainant, which was compromised for Rs.1,70,000/-, and the amount was deposited by him on 29.10.2013. As the NPA amount was Rs.2,25,458/-, the minimum level was Rs.1,62,452/- on 26.3.2011. However, even the full court fee was refunded to him and other expenses during the settlement were also not claimed. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was asked to submit the copy of the registration certificate, but he lingered on the matter and did not submit the Registration Certificate in the bank. The opposite parties issued ‘No Dues Certificate’ to him and form-35 could be given only after seeing the Registration Certificate, which was mandatory for issuing form 35. There was no fault or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of D.N.Chandra Senior Branch Manager Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.14.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant had obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party bank for purchasing a car, which was hypothecated with the opposite party bank under Hire Purchase Agreement. He did not maintain the financial discipline and became a defaulter. Ultimately, his loan account was declared as NPA and settled under one time settlement scheme for Rs.1,70,000/-. However, prior to the settlement, the bank had filed suit for recovery of Rs.2,25,458/-. After settlement of the account, the opposite parties issued ‘No Dues Certificate’, however form-35 for getting cancelled the hypothecation in the Registration Certificate was not issued.

7.                The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant did not produce the original registration certificate, which was mandatory for issuance of the form-35 and for that reason form 35 could not be issued. In support of the said plea, the opposite parties have produced the copy of the letter Ex.R3 sent to the complainant for submitting the copy of the Registration Certificate. The copy of the letter dated 29.11.2011  Ex.R7 shows that the opposite parties inspected the car of the complainant at his residence, but even at that time the complainant had failed to produce the original certificate. Even letters were written by the opposite parties to the RTO/SDM, Karnal, the copies of which are Ex.R10 and Ex.R11 seeking confirmation regarding noting hypothecation in favour of the Bank in Registration Certificate. The complainant has not produced any evidence which my show that he had produced the original certificate of the car before the opposite parties for getting issued form-35. Until and unless hypothecation of the vehicle was mentioned in the Registration Certificate, there could be no question of issuing form 35. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the complainant to produce the registration certificate of the vehicle before the opposite parties for getting issued form no.35. Copy of the Registration Certificate is Ex.C3, shows that the Registration Certificate was issued on 17.12.2013, whereas the loan account of the complainant was already settled on 29.10.2013. Thus, on the date of settlement of the loan account the vehicle was not even got registered by the complainant with the Registering Authority, therefore, immediately after settlement of the loan form 35 could not be issued by the opposite parties. The opposite parties would be bound to issue the form-35 after producing the registration certificate by the complainant.

8.                The opposite parties have also produced the copy of statement of account Ex.R13. The complainant has alleged that the account was settled for Rs.1,41,000/-, but there is no reference in the statement of account that loan account of the complainant was settled for Rs.1,41,000/-. There is entry of payment of Rs.1,70,000/- by the complainant on 29.10.2013 and waiving of the interest etc. of Rs.66,664/-. Therefore, the plea of the complainant that the opposite parties had illegally charged an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- instead of Rs.1,41,000/- cannot be accepted.

9.                In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, the complaint is disposed of with the direction that the complainant shall produce the Registration Certificate of the vehicle before the opposite parties and thereafter the opposite parties would issue form 35 within 15 days. The order shall be complied accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record after due compliance.

 

Announced:

Dt. 7.11.2016                                                                 (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Froum, Karnal.

 

                   (Anil Sharma)

                      Member