BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 03/2006 Filed on 04.01.2006

Dated : 31.07.2009

Complainant:

Mohankumar. B, Malavika Enterprises, T.C 25/842, Puthen Road Junction, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. R. Ram Mohan)

Opposite parties:

1. The ICICI Bank Ltd., represented by its General Manager, Car Loan Section Landmark, Race Course Road, Vadodhara, Mumbai-395007.

    

2. Mr. Sanju Yousuf, ICICI Bank Ltd., M.G Square, Padma Junction, Ernakulam.

    

3. Mr. Sooraj, Sales Manager, Car Loan Section, ICICI Bank Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Kamala Towers, Ganapathi Koil Road, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Koliacode K. Rajeev)

This O.P having been heard on 24.07.2009, the Forum on 31.07.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: Complainant availed a car loan LATVM 00002410756 for the purchase of Maruthi-Versa DXI from the 3^rd opposite party. The said vehicle is registered before the Road Transport Authorities, Thiruvananthapuram and Registration Number of the vehicle is KL-01 AF 1314 and the same was hypothecated in favour of ICICI Bank Ltd. On 02.08.2005 complainant settled the transaction with ICICI and terminated the loan agreement already executed in favour of the Bank. After closing the said transaction the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party for getting the “No Objection Letter” and for getting the notice of termination of hypothecation required under the Motor Vehicles Act. But the 3^rd opposite party did not issue the same to the complainant. On 08.08.2005, one of the employees of ICICI Bank Ltd., namely Prasanth P had issued a letter stating that the loan agreement is terminated and that they have no objection for the removal of hypothecation. Thereafter the complainant had taken steps for the cancellation of the endorsement in the Certificate of Registration and the hypothecation in favour of ICICI Bank was cancelled with effect from 26.09.2005. On 08.08.2005 itself the complainant requested the 3^rd opposite party to return the duplicate key in his possession. The 3^rd opposite party directed the complainant to come after one week and he assured that the key will be handed over on that day itself. After one week the complainant again approached the 3^rd opposite party and on that day also he did not return the key as promised. Though the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party on many days thereafter the 3^rd opposite party evaded from returning the key to the complainant. Thereafter on 31.08.2005 the original key of the vehicle in the possession of the complainant was misplaced and in spite of searching, he could not find out the same. As the complainant was not having any duplicate key in his possession, on 31.08.2005 itself the complainant contacted the office of the 3^rd opposite party for the return of the duplicate key in the possession of the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party told the complainant that they have not collected the duplicate key of the vehicle from Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Kuttukaran Complex, Karamana who is the authorized agent of Maruti Udyog Ltd. The complainant contacted the Manager of Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., and he had told the complainant that in every case in which financial assistance were taken by the customers, the duplicate keys will be handed over to the firm which renders financial assistance to the customers and in this case also the duplicate key of the vehicle had already been handed over to ICICI Bank Ltd. Vazhuthacaud Branch and he had directed the complainant to meet the 3^rd opposite party. Thereafter the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party for getting the key. But all his attempts were failed due to the adamant and lethargic attitude of the opposite parties and their office staff. The office staff of the opposite parties behaved very badly towards the complainant. Complainant also stated that he could not use the vehicle from 31.08.2005 to 06.09.2005. He was forced to avail car on rent from a firm at Thiruvananthapuram and thereby he had to spend Rs. 7,000/-. The complainant cannot sell or alienate the vehicle without the duplicate key of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant issued legal notice dated 07.09.2005 to the opposite parties calling upon them to take appropriate and effective steps to give back the key. But the opposite parties deliberately evaded from receiving of the notice with malafide intention of not returning the key to the complainant. As per the complainant the acts of the opposite parties in not returning the keys even after closing of loan agreement with them amounts to deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.

The 1^st opposite party in this case is ICICI Bank, 2^nd opposite party is Sanju Yusuf, ICICI Bank and 3^rd opposite party is Sooraj, Sales Manager, Car Loan Section. In the version 3^rd opposite party stated that the complaint is false and the allegation raised by the complainant is not true. The complainant or his agents never came to the office of the opposite parties and demanded the key. He submitted that on receiving the advocate notice the opposite parties contacted the complainant and told that they are ready to give the key, if the complainant give a proper receipt. But the complainant was not ready for that. Thereafter on receiving the notice from this Forum, this opposite party came to this Forum with duplicate key on all posting and the complainant deliberately not turned up. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has been examined as PW1 and the 3^rd opposite party cross examined the complainant. From the complainant's side 9 documents were produced and marked as Exts. P1 to P9.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant availed a loan for the purchase of Maruti Versa DXI from the opposite parties and on 02.08.2005 the complainant settled the transaction and terminated the loan agreement already executed in favour of the opposite party bank. On 08.08.2005 the opposite party Bank had issued a letter stating that they have no objection for the removal of hypothecation. Accordingly the complainant requested the opposite parties to return the duplicate key in their possession. But the opposite parties are not willing to hand over the key to the complainant. The complainant's repeated demands and requests for the key were denied by the opposite parties. Meanwhile the original key of the vehicle was lost from the complainant and therefore he was in urgent need of the duplicate key. But the opposite party has not returned the key to the complainant. Hence the complainant had to take a car for hire to meet his wants. The complainant also alleges that the rude and satirical behaviour of the staff of the opposite parties had caused severe mental pain and agony to him.

To prove his contentions the complainant has produced 9 documents. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the photocopy of certificate of registration of the vehicle KL-01 AF 1314. In this document the owner of the vehicle is Mohan Kumar. B, the complainant. Ext. P2 is the letter issued by the opposite parties stating that the loan agreement is terminated and they have no objection for the removal of hypothecation. Ext. P3 is the invoice dated 07.09.2005 of Marcopolo Travel House with regard to the car hiring by the complainant for an amount of Rs. 7,000/-. As per this document the complainant had hired the car from 31.08.2005 to 06.09.2005, hiring charge per day is seen as Rs. 1,000/-. But the complainant has nowhere in the complaint stated that who is he or what is his job and what was his urgency to hire a car for Rs. 1,000/- per day. The complainant not turned up to prove the veracity of Ext. P3 document. He also admitted that the original key of the vehicle was misplaced from 31.08.2005 to 06.09.2005. For that reason he had hired the vehicle. Ext. P4 is the photocopy of letter issued by the dealer Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. to the opposite parties stating that on 29.11.2004 one of the executives of the opposite parties had taken the key and invoice of the vehicle of the complainant. From this document we can find that the duplicate key of the vehicle has been in the custody of opposite parties. Ext. P5 is the copy of legal notice dated 07.09.2005 issued to the opposite parties calling upon them to take appropriate and effective steps to give back the key. Exts. P6 to P8 are the postal records of the legal notice. As per Ext. P7 series the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party accepted the legal notice.

From these documents we can see that the complainant has closed the entire loan transaction with the opposite party on 08.08.2005. As per the loan agreement the opposite parties are bound to return all the documents and duplicate key of the vehicle to the complainant. But the opposite parties did not return duplicate key to the complainant and thereby caused huge mental agony and other hardships to the complainant. Through the documents, pleadings and affidavit filed by the complainant, he has established his case successfully. In this case the 3^rd opposite party only has contested the case.

From the above mentioned discussions we are of the view that there has been deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. The complainant closed the loan on 08.08.2005 and from that day onwards he demanded the key to the opposite parties. The complainant sent legal notice on 07.09.2005 and filed complaint before this Forum on 04.01.2006. But the opposite parties returned the key only on 08.01.2007 during the pendency of this case. Therefore the opposite parties are held liable to pay compensation to the complainant for their deficient service. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 1^st opposite party ICICI Bank is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also shall pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter 12% annual interest also shall be paid to the entire amount till the date of realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of July 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 03/2006

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Mohan Kumar

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of certificate of registration of the vehicle.

P2 - Letter dated 08.08.2005 from ICICI Bank, Tvpm.

P3 - Invoice dated 07.09.2005 from Marcopolo Travel House

for Rs. 7,000/-.

P4 - Letter dated 01.09.2005 from ICICI Bank, Vazhuthacaud.

P5 - Copy of legal notice dated 07.09.2005.

P6 - Postal receipts (3 Nos.)

P7 - Acknowledgement cards (2 Nos.)

P8 - Returned envelop with A/D card.

P9 - Copy of letter dated 01.09.2005 from Popular Vehicles and

Services Ltd.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT