Orissa

Cuttak

CC/114/2015

Mamata Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

26 Dec 2015

ORDER

         OFFICE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM:CUTTACK.

                                                                      C.C. No.114 of 2015

1.            Mamata Jena,

W/O: Soumya Ranjan Jena.

 

2.            Soumya Ranjan Jena

Both are Resident of Poporada,

Near Mandap Chhak,Nayabazar,

Cuttack.                                                                                             … Complainants.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.         Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Cuttack Main Branch,Collectorate Compound,

Chandini Chowk,Cuttack..

 

2.        Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Retail Assets & Small and Medium Enterprise Centre,

P.O: College Square, Cuttack-753020.                                             ….Opp. Parties.

Present:               Sri B.K.Das,President..

 Sri Pitabasa Mohanty,Member.

 

                                                                 JUDGMENT

 

Deficiency as well as unfair trade practice is the grievance of the petitioner.

1. The facts relevant for the present dispute shortly are that the petitioner had purchased Maruti Alto-800LX1 bearing No.OD-02-S-3930 with the financial help of O.P No.1. For availing such loan the petitioner has executed an agreement with the O.Ps.  As per term and condition of the agreement though the petitioner is required to pay Rs.5084/- as monthly installment towards the repayment of loan and the petitioner was paying the installment regularly but due to financial stringency the petitioner defaulted 2 installments i.e. September and October,2015 amounting to Rs.12,352/-.  It is alleged by the petitioner that as against such regular payment owing to defaulted of two installments the O.Ps on 06.10.2015 seized the above cited vehicle at Bidanasi,Nuasahi afternoon without giving any prior notice.  After seizure of the vehicle the petitioner ascertained from the O.Ps that due to defaulted situation the vehicle has been seized.  Accordingly with much difficulty the petitioner paid Rs.27,000/- on 14.10.2015 which includes the defaulted installments along with advance E.M.I with good assurance that the O.Ps will release the vehicle after receipt of the amount.  It is further stated by the petitioner that as per the demand notice of O.Ps though the petitioner is required to pay Rs.17,436/- but even if after payment of Rs.27,000/- the O.Ps did not release the vehicle and it may be possible that the O.Ps might have been sold the vehicle to some other person for which the petitioner will suffer financial loss and loss of his livelihood.  Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute along with interim application with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to release the vehicle and pay compensation with litigation charges.
2. The O.Ps after appearance have filed the written version denying the allegation of the petitioner.  In the written version the O.Ps have taken the pleas which are stated below:-

1. The seizure of the financed vehicle cannot be said as illegal since as per terms and condition of the agreement of the financed vehicle the O.Ps are empowered to seize the vehicle in case of default in repayment of loan.
2. In the present case both the above cited petitioners have availed the medium term loan of Rs.3,00,000/- under S.B.I,T.L.New Car loan scheme as per agreement dt.20.10.2014.  As per clause-12 of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement the O.Ps are empowered to seize the vehicle in case of default of installments more than one installment or bouncing of more than one post dated cheque.  Since after availing the loan the petitioner’s defaulted amount comes to Rs.17,834/- and after issuance of several reminders the petitioners did not rep[ay the loan the O.Ps finding no other way have seized the vehicle as per terms and conditions of the agreement.
3. In addition to it the 2^nd petitioner Soumya Ranjan Jena also has availed a PMEGP loan amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- on 31.07.2012 from the O.Ps.  After availing the loan the petitioner committed gross irregularity in maintaining financial discipline for which the PMEGP loan turned NPA.  More over the petitioner also committed gross fraud on the O.Ps as the petitioner unit ceased the exist in the recorded address.  Similarly the car loan availed by the petitioner also became NPA due to default in payment of installments.  The O.Ps have issued several reminders specially letter No.RACPC/CTC/6123 dt.27.06.2015 demanding to pay Rs.17,834/- but the petitioner did not pay any heed to it.  As a result the O.Ps were compelled to seize the financed vehicle.  At present there is an outstanding dues of Rs.2,71,288/- against the seizure of the financed vehicle.  After seizuring of the vehicle the same has been handed over to Seizure Agency where as per Bank guide lines the O.Ps have no control to release the seizure vehicle unless the full outstanding amount is paid by the petitioner, failing which the vehicle will be put to auction sale.  Apart from it was made clear that the vehicle could not be released just by upgrading the loan as per standard operating procedure of the Bank.  In addition to it the 2^nd petitioner was informed that he had not repaid the PMEGP loan of Rs.3,00,000/- which has became NPA and also his unit was not in existence for which Bank was contemplating initiation of Criminal Proceedings.  Accordingly the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above assertion and counter assertions we are inclined to decide the dispute as per our observations below:-

It is admitted facts that the petitioner has availed the car loan from the O.Ps.  As against such loan it is stated by the petitioner that though he was paying the monthly installments regularly but due to financial stringency he has defaulted two installments for the month of Sept,15 and October,2015.  Such contention of the petitioner is also supported by the letter of O.Ps dt.27.06.2015 wherein the O.Ps have intimated the petitioner to clear up the irregularity amount of Rs.17,834/-.  Accordingly the petitioner has deposited Rs.27,000/- on 14.10.2015 as observed from the payment slip.  IN such situation though it is the liability of the O.Ps to release the seized vehicle forthwith but without releasing the same demanding Rs.2,71,288/- which is arbitrary since it relates to future installments.  In this context we make it clear that the petitioner has availed the car loan on the strength of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement which is a contract.  As per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in II (1996) CPJ-25-SC (Bharati Knitting Company Vrs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier) it is held that both the parties are bound by terms and conditions of contract.  In case the petitioner again defaulted in paying the future installments the way is open for the O.Ps to take action as per law on the strength of Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement.  But without following such procedure of law, demanding the future installment is nothing but arbitrary on the part of O.Ps, in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court stated above.

3. Moreover the PMEGP loan as availed by the petitioner No.2 will not debar the petitioner for releasing the seized vehicle from the custody of O.Ps as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2012(3) CPR-314(Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vrs. Jumma Khan) wherein it is held that;

“One cannot stop NOC in respect of one vehicle even if other agreement is still continuing”.

In view of the above narrated observations, we are in the considered view that the interest of justice would be best served in case we direct the O.Ps to release the seized vehicle forthwith without delay.  Hence this order.

 

                                                                                ORDER

                This dispute is allowed against the O.P No.1 & 2.  The O.P No.1 & 2 are directed to release the above cited seized vehicle within 7 days after receipt of this order, failing which both the O.Ps 1 & 2 will be liable to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand) along with simple interest for the delayed period.  The petitioner is also directed to repay the future installments regularly after release of the above vehicle as per repayment schedule and not complying the same, the O.Ps are at liberty to take lawful action.  No cost.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the open Court on this the 26^th day of December, 2015 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri Pitabasa Mohanty)

                                                                                                                                                       Member

 

                                    (Sri B.K.Das )

                                                                                                                                                     President.