| Final Order / Judgement | (Delivered On 19/8/2016) Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member - This appeal challenges the order dated 12/01/2007, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Washim , partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 137/2006(Akola), 29/06 (Washim) and thereby directing the original OP Nos. 1 to 4, ICICI Bank Ltd./appellants herein to return Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 61,983/- to the complainant Mr. Gajanan Vittalrao Shinde which he had paid in cash, and Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding respectively and the aforesaid amounts to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order in default, the amount would carry 9 percent per annum interest.
- Respondent No. 1 Mr. Gajajnan Vittalrao Shinde to be referred as complainant, and respondent No. 2 Vidarbha Tractors, Murtijapur Akola and respondent No. 3 Mr. Surandra Mishra c/o Vidarbha Tractors, Murtijapur Road, Akola to be referred as OP Nos. 5 and 6 respectively and appellants ICICI bank Ltd. through its regional office, branch office at Amravati and Akola be referred as OP Nos. 1 to 4, for the sake of convenience.
- Facts in brief as setout by the complainant in complaint are as under:-
The complainant Mr. Gajanan Shinde is an agriculturist and purchased a new tractor for Rs. 4,65,900/- on 29/01/2005. The complainant also gave his old tractor for Rs. 1,35,900/- to the OP No. 1 and availed loan from it to purchase the same. The OP No. 1 sanctioned the loan of Rs. 3,30,000/- on crop pattern basis fora period of five years. It is the contention of the complainant that he was neither given the copy of theloan agreement nor was he informed about the installment to be paid towards repayment of the loan. It is further contended by the complainant that his tractor was repossessed by the OP without giving any notice on 13/08/2005. On 23/08/2005, the OP issued a presale notice to the complainant. The complainant had to pay Rs. 23,983/- by 22/04/2005. However he could pay Rs. 10,000/- by 28/06/2005. The balance amount of Rs. 13,983/- could not be paid although he was willing to pay the same. Although the complainant paid Rs. 61,949/- by demand draft (DD) dated 18/11/2005, the OP still sold the tractor which was repossessed by it.The complainant incurred a loss of Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30,000/- per month as he was deprived of the tractor. The complainant therefore filed the consumer complaint and sought for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages for loss of income, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards physical and mental harassment and Rs. 7,15,000/- towards cost of tractor and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of proceeding. - The OP Nos. 1 to 4 resisted the complaint by filing their written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant. The OP Nos. 1 to 4 specifically submitted that as the complainant had failed to repay the installments towards loan, it had issued a letter dated 23/8/2005 to the complainant in which it was mentioned that the outstanding balance towards repayment was of Rs. 3,58,475/-. The complainant was called upon to pay the said amount within 7 days and in case of default, tractor would be sold. As the complainant did not still repay the loan, the OP was constrained to sell the tractor. The amount received was adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. However there still remain an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,63,125/- to be paid by the complainant which was informed to him by letter dated 15/12/2005.The OP denied to have rendered deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of complaint with cost.
- The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents on record, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid and directed the OP Nos. 1 to 4/appellants herein to return the amount paid in cash by the complainant. The Forum has specifically observed that the OP should have given some opportunity to the complainant to repay the loan. The very fact that the complainant had given a demand draft (DD) to the OP shows that the complainant intended to repay the loan and the OP had without any reason repossessed the tractor. The complainant issued demand draft of Rs. 61,983/- to the OPs even after the repossession of the tractor so as to show his bonafides. The OP has caused injustice to the complainant by not giving opportunity to the complainant to repay the loan.
- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the original OP has preferred this appeal challenging the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Forum directed to return an amount of Rs. 61,983/- to the complainant though Bank demand draft for the said amount was not en-cashed by the appellants.
- We heard counsels for both the sides and perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties, copy of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record by both the parties. The purchase of tractor and amount of loan availed from the OP is not disputed. ‘The Vehicle Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement’ with the Schedule is filed on record, which lays down the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Each and every page of the said agreement bears the signatures of the complainant. Therefore it cannot be accepted that the complainant was not given the copy of the said agreement and he was not aware of the installments to be paid towards repayment of loan. It is not disputed that the appellant received two demand drafts dated 18/11/2005 of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 30,949/-. By letter dated 19/4/2006the appellants had called upon the complainant/borrower for instructions to adjust the DD’s towards his liabilities. The appellants have also filed another undated letter on record which is addressed to the complainant, thereby reminding the complainant to convey his instructions regarding the two DD’s sent towards the loan account. The only inference that can be drawn from the aforesaid two letters is that the amount of two DD was not adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. The complainants have also failed to bring any evidence on record like the statement of loan account or such account from which the DD were prepared to show that the aforesaid amount was adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. Further more it is not disputed that after the resale of the vehicle and crediting the proceeds in the loan account, there still remained certain outstanding balance to be repaid to the appellant towards the loan account. Therefore directing the appellant/original OP Nos. 1 to 4 to refund the amount received towards repayment of loan cannot sustain in law. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside as illegal and unsustainable in law. In the result we pass the following order.
ORDER - The appeal is allowed.
- The impugned order dated 12/1/2007, passed in consumer complaint bearing No. No. 137/2006 ( Akola), 29/06 (Washim) is quashed and set aside.
- Complaint stands dismissed.
- No order as to cost.
- Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.
| |
