PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of March 2012
Filed on : 13/10/2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 534/2010
Between
Sivankutty Nair, : Complainant
S/o. Kesavapillai, (By Adv. Peer Mohamed Khan,
Sivavilasam, No. 15, Infant Jesus Building,
Near Varghese lane, High Court View, Kochi-31)
Choornikkara Panchayathu,
Thaikkattukara, Aluva, Ernakulam.
And
1. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., : Opposite parties
Rep. by its General Manager,
HDFC Bank house,
Senapathi Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel West,
Mumbai-400 013.
2. Branch Manager, (1st O.P.by Adv.T. Rajesh,
HDFC Bank Ltd., 4F, Metro Plaza, Market road,
Ernakulam North branch, Cochin-652 424)
Madhava Pharmacy Jn,
Ernakulam.
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The short facts behind the complaint.
Complainant had a vehicle loan with the 1st opposite party. He committed default in repayment of the loan due to some pressing financial needs. On request one time settlement of the loan was allowed for the amount of Rs. 65,000/-. Accordingly complainant paid the said amount. On payment of the loan, complainant requested for no-objection certificate and return of six blank cheques which were handed over to 2nd opposite party. But his request was turned down by opposite parties. Instead, they justified their action by holding that they were exercising general lien over those documents to realize the balance amount outstanding in respect of a personal loan availed from Centurion Bank earlier which was amalgamated with the 1st opposite party bank under a scheme approved by Reserve Bank of India. The complaint is filed with a view to obtaining the NOC and return of the cheques apart from compensation and costs.
2. Opposite parties filed version answering the allegations raised in the complaint. It is true that the complainant availed loan on hypothecation of the vehicle. The averment that the loan transaction will be settled on payment of Rs. 65,000/- is denied. Apart from hypothecation, no document is received by the opposite party towards security. Opposite party is not liable to issue NOC to the complainant. There was no scheme arrived at between the parties for one time settlement. Complainant had committed default in repayment of loan to the tune of Rs. 1,57,500/- and an amount of Rs. 1,31,439.89 is due from the complainant. The opposite parties are invoking the right of Bankers general lien and set off. The complainant is not entitled for No objection certificate as he is liable to pay off the amount due to the personal loan. Hence the complaint is devoid of merits.
3. Complainant examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A5 marked on his side. No evidence for opposite parties. Learned counsel on both sides were heard.
4. The following points require settlement.
i. Whether complainant has fully paid off his liabilities?
ii. Whether the opposite parties have the right of general lien
over the documents?
iii. Any other consequent reliefs?
5. Points (i) and (ii). The whole issue centered round the payment of loan and corresponding release of NOC and the 6 blank cheques received as security. Complainant admits that there was default in payment of vehicle loan. But he contends that he has fully paid off his liability in terms of a scheme drawn by the parties for one time settlement of the loan. He is entitled for the NOC and the return of six blank cheques received by opposite parties. But the opposite parties are of the view that they are entitled to exercise Bankers general lien over the documents in their possession to realize the out standing amount in respect of a loan availed from erstwhile Centurion Bank which had been subsequently amalgamated with opposite Party Bank.
Opposite parties cling on to the documents of the complainant in their possession on the ground of Banker’s lien because the complainant had committed default in respect of loan availed from centurion Bank. Unfortunately for opposite parties, there is nothing on record to prove such a loan transaction. We do not think that opposite parties can rely on the right of general lien without producing materials to establish that there was any default and if at all, what was the amount of default. In the absence of the cogent evidence in this regard, it is not proper on the part of opposite parties to draw benefit out of that right. Now the question deserving our attention is as to whether any amount is still outstanding to justify the with holding of NOC and retention of blank cheques. In the wake of Exts. A1 and A2 we need not consume much time to settle the amount outstanding in respect of the vehicle loan. Exts. A1 clearly stipulates that opposite parties are agreeable for amicable settlement if the amount indicated is paid in lump sum. The amount specified is Rs. 65,000/-. Ext. A2 clearly shows that the amount has been paid on 19/06/2010. These two documents together taken, leaves no room for any doubt that the loan transaction was settled with the one time payment of Rs. 65,000/-.
6. Point No. (ii). That being the fact, we do not find it justifiable on the part of opposite parties in withholding NOC. Same is the case with blank cheques in 6 numbers alleged to have been received by the opposite parties and being retained by them. We do not find that complainant is deserving any compensation. Both opposite parties shall pay costs of the proceedings.
6. Accordingly the complaint stands allowed as follows:
i. Opposite parties shall issue NOC to the complainant to get endorsement of hypothecation deleted in the RC of the vehicle.
ii. Opposite parties shall return 6 blank cheques received from complainant.
iii. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of proceedings.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of March 2012
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Customer copy
dt. 15-06-2010
A2 : Receipt dt. 19-06-2010
A3 : Lawyer notice
dt. 12-07-2010
A4 : Reply notice dt. 20-08-2010
A5series : Bank statement
dt. 27/11/2008
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : K.V. Sivankutty Nair
