COMPLAINT FILED: 26.05.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 29th OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1202/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Javeed Baig, <br /> S/o Anwar Baig,<br /> Aged about 42 years,<br /> M/s Supreme Pipe Corporation,<br /> 2nd Main Road, New Mandipet,<br /> Tumkur – 572 101.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri Imtiaz Ahmed Khan, <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY HDFC Bank Limited,<br /> Collection Department,<br /> 2nd Floor, Golder Towers,<br /> B Wing, Next to Golden Enclave,<br /> Kodihalli, Airport Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 017.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri Francis Xavier <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to issue clearance certificate and the statutory form for cancellation of HP entry made in the registration certificate of vehicle No.KA-06 V-7676 in the name of the complainant and to make payment for mental pain and agony on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant availed financial facilities from the OP bank in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06 V-7676 and obtained the registration certificate from RTO Tumkur. The first installment commenced from August 2004 and the cheques had been issued by the complainant commencing from 07.09.2004. However, some cheques were not honoured and the balance of which amounting to Rs.13,765-40 was due as on 19.07.2006 has been paid on 31.07.2006. The complainant demanded for issue of NOC. OP bank officials failed to perform the obligatory duties. The OP without the knowledge of complainant taken the vehicle in possession, the complainant lodged a complaint with the police; in the meanwhile he received a notice from OP for which he had issued reply on 07.01.2009. Though OP has issued a counter statement through their letter dated 13.01.2009 claiming payment of Rs.21,655/- which has no documentary proof to claim the said amount; thought the complainant has no due to the OP. The OP failed to perform the obligatory duties of services to be rendered to the customers. The complainant is put to humiliation in the society that too in particular in the close family relatives and friends, the complainant is entitled for compensation. Thus the complainant filed this complaint seeking reliefs stated above. The complainant produced documents along with the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. OP on appearance filed version contending that the complainant cannot invoke the provision of the CP Act. He is not a consumer; he is only borrower under a contract governed by contract itself. The dispute is not a consumer dispute; the complainant is misusing and abusing the process. It is admitted that the complainant availed the financial facilities for purchasing the vehicle but it is denied that the cheques have been issued commencing from 07.09.2004. It is stated the complainant entered into an agreement under loan account 1170565 and the amount financed is Rs.42,000/- on 03.02.2005. The monthly installment at the rate of Rs.1711.00 commenced from 07.02.2005. It is denied that though the complainant cleared entire amount due in respect of that vehicle. The complainant played fraud by producing alleged receipt dated 31.07.2006 which is no way connected to this transaction. The complainant had availed two loans to purchase the vehicles under loan agreement Nos.777814 dated 30.07.2004 and loan agreement No.1170656. The payment under receipt dated 31.07.2006 is towards the loan account No.777814 as against the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06 V-7676 and not towards the loan account No.1170565. The documents produced along with the complaint pertains to loan transaction bearing No.777814 except legal notice and reply. Those documents are nothing to with this case. The complainant failed to repay the monthly installments; the OP repossessed the vehicle on 29.12.2008 with the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant has hypothecated vehicle for the loan availed. The statement annexed discloses the installments due from the complainant. OP has issued pre sale notice dated 30.12.2008, the complainant has not paid the amount, he has sent reply notice dated 07.01.2009 claiming that he has paid the entire amount due. On 13.01.2009 OP has sent reply to the complainant stating the he is still due in sum of Rs.21,655.00 under loan agreement No.1170565 and requested to repay the same within 7 days. Even after receipt of that reply complainant did not come forward to claim the vehicle repossessed nor paid the outstanding amount due to the OP. The vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06 V-7626 is still lying in the parking yard. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant is residing at Tumkur and vehicle is registered at RTO of Tumkur; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit to substantiate the complaint allegations and filed written arguments. The officer as a PA holder of OP bank filed affidavit in support of the version.<br /> <br /> 5. After perusing the pleadings and the documents produced and affidavit evidence and hearing on OP side and considering written arguments of complainant the following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant prove the<br /> deficiency in service on the part of the <br /> OP bank? <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for<br /> the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings to the above points are: <br /> <br /> Point Nos.1 and 2:- Negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset we have to observe that the complainant has come up with a false claim by producing a payment receipt unconnected with this loan transaction. He has suppressed the material facts. He is claiming relief in respect vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06 V-7626; which was purchased by them availing financial facility from OP bank under loan agreement account No.1170565. The receipt produced by the complainant for having paid the amount of Rs.13,765/- relates to the loan account No.777814. That loan was availed by the complainant in respect of another vehicle bearing No.KA-06 V-7626. The payment made in that account relates the said vehicle but not towards loan availed in respect of the vehicle No.KA-06 V-7676. The account extract produced by the OP bank clearly goes to show that the complainant has availed the loan of Rs.42,000/- for purchasing the vehicle KA-06 V-7626 agreeing to pay monthly EMI of Rs.1,711/-. The said vehicle has been hypothecated and the complainant failed to pay instalments due to the OP bank and OP bank repossessed that vehicle and a pre sale notice was issued to the complainant. For the legal notice dated 07.01.2009 got issued by the complainant; the OP bank has sent reply stating that the complainant is still due in a sum of Rs.21,655/- as on 13.01.2009 and the complainant was called upon to make payment of that amount within 7 days; the account number was also informed under which the said vehicle has been purchased. The complainant without making payment as demanded by the OP bank has filed this complaint claiming that he has repaid the entire loan availed in respect of the vehicle KA-06 V-7626. The account extract produced by the complainant relates to loan account No.777814. The vehicle purchased under that loan account was KA-06 V-7676, the receipt produced by the complainant also relates to that account. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank. The OP bank was justified in repossessing the vehicle as the complainant failed to pay the amount due. The complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed. The complaint is devoid of merits; the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.3,000/-. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of October 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm:<br /> <br />