Date of Filing:14/03/2011

        Date of Order:27/04/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  27^th DAY OF APRIL 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.518 OF 2011

Sri. V. Parthasarathy,

S/o. V. Venkatadasappa,

R/at: No.B15, S.K. Lane,

Chikkamavalli,

Bangalore-560 004.                                                            ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1)  ICICI Bank Limited,

Corporate Office: ICICI Bank Towers,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai-400 051.

Rep. by its General Manager.

(2) ICICI Bank Limited,

Mytree Centre, 4/10,

Ground Floor, Hosur Road,

Next to Oxford Engineering College,

Bangalore-560 068.

Rep. by its General Manager.                                          …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to rectify the discrepancies and to issue No Objection Certificate and to pay Rs.15,22,445.80, are necessary:-

The complainant purchased Kinetic Nova a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-01-U-4463 from Advaith Marketing Private Limited on 11.04.2002 having financial assistance from Tata Finance, and had also made a refundable security deposit of Rs.8,127/- on 25.07.2002 and the maturity value is Rs.9,426/- with Tata Finance.  The said Tata Finance Limited was amalgamated with the opposite party and ever since the opposite party took over all the assets and liabilities of Tata Finance Limited.  Accordingly the complainant was repaying the loan amount of the said vehicle through post dated cheques, in installments from 25.07.2002 to 15.06.2004.  The opposite party has issued the statement of accounts dated: 29.09.2009 wherein the loan agreement number, the model of the vehicle, registration number are completely changed.  The principal recovered from the complainant is Rs.40,633/- plus interest of Rs.8,043/-, whereas loan financed was Rs.36,798/-.  The opposite party has recovered Rs.7,000/- on 29.11.2004 towards Foreclosure of the loan.  When the complainant requested the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate, the opposite party on 29.09.2009 issued the N.O.C. containing the incorrect loan account number, the incorrect vehicle number, this is nothing but deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to correct the same, but they have not done so.  The complainant obtained the details of the vehicle registration bearing No. KA-02-EG-834 from the Registering Authority and found that it belongs to one Mr. Vittal Rao. K.G., S/o. late Govinda Rao.K, residing at No.71, 3^rd Cross, 2^nd Stage, Okalipuram, Bangalore-560 021.  Thus the opposite parties have incorrectly recovered the money, incorrectly changed the vehicle name, number and the loan of the another person and thus committed unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

          The complaint is hopelessly barred by time.  The documents produced by the complainant clearly goes to show he has foreclosed the loan on 29.11.2004 and hence this complaint filed after lapse of seven years is barred by time.  The complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.  Tata Motor Finance should have been impleaded as a party.  The said portfolio of the Tata Motor Finance Limited was taken over by the opposite party in the year 2004 whatever documents given by the Tata Motor were mentioned by the opposite party and issued the NOC, after collecting the EMI’s.  The complainant obtained the NOC without any protest.  This is not a consumer dispute.  The complainant availed the two wheeler loan from the Tata Motor Finance Limited vide TWH 132044 and the said portfolio was sold to the opposite party.  Accordingly the new loan number was given as ESBNG00002861874 and the vehicle number was KA-02-EG-834, Kinatic Honda Zoom.  Accordingly the complainant has paid the amount, opposite party received the money and the complainant foreclosed the loan and the opposite party issued the NOC.  The complainant never objected to the same nor requested for the change.  On the date of foreclosure, the complainant was due Rs.7,000/- including the late payment and other charges.  The opposite party waived some charges as customer gesture and now the complainant has filed this complaint making false allegations.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied. 

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by time?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service?
3. What Order?

5.      Our findings are:-

Point (A)    :        Partly Positive

Point (B)   :        In the Positive

Point (C)   :        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A to C:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the evidence both oral and documentary on record, it is admitted and established that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle Kinetic Nova No.KA-01-U-4464.  He had insured the said vehicle.  He has obtained certain loan from Tata Finance Limited and he has also invested Rs.8,127/- as a refundable deposit with the said Tata Finance Limited and the date of maturity was 25.07.2002 and the said Tata Finance Limited had to repay it on that date Rs.9,426.77/- to the complainant.  The portfolio of the said loan was taken over by the opposite party in the year 2004.  The complainant states and the opposite party admit that the complainant has cleared the loan on 29.11.2004.  When the complainant has cleared the loan amount on 29.11.2004 how can the complainant come before this Forum stating that there is some deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party either in foreclosing the loan or in collecting some amount in excess.  This complaint is filed on 14.03.2011.  The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party by changing the loan account number, by changing the vehicle number has collected the excess amount on 29.11.2004, which is bound to repay, this claim is hopelessly barred by time as rightly contended.  Anyway in the receipt dated: 29.11.2004 and the security deposit receipt is dated: 25.07.2002, the transaction came to an end on 29.11.2004 and 24.07.2004 respectively.  The complaint is filed on 14.03.2011 with respect to those items are hopelessly barred by time.  In all these things the vehicle number stated by the opposite party as KA-02-EG-834 if that were to be wrong the complainant would not have foreclosed the loan.  When he has foreclosed the loan, all accounts have been settled properly.  With eyes wide opened he had foreclosed the loan.  Hence he cannot turn round and say that this amount paid by him in the year 2004 is excess or he is entitled to refund of the same.  Hence to this extent the claim is barred by time.

7.       Anyway it is seen from the account extract produced by the opposite party that, as on that opposite party has waived off:-

On 31.03.2009 closed loan account and issued NOC on 29.09.2009, in the NOC that has been issued, the loan account number and the vehicle number is wrongly mentioned, that loan account and vehicle number does not belong to the complainant, it belong to one Mr. Vittal Rao. K.G., S/o. late Govinda Rao.K, residing at No.71, 3^rd Cross, 2^nd Stage, Okalipuram, Bangalore-560021.  This issue of a wrong NOC to the complainant with respect to his loan is certainly a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  To this effect as the wrong NOC has been issued on 29.09.2009 the complaint filed on 14.03.2011 with respect to that is not barred by time.  Hence if we direct the opposite party to issue a correct NOC with respect to the loan account to the complainant and his correct loan account of the complainant and correct vehicle number, we think that will meet the ends of justice.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party is directed to issue No Objection Certificate with respect to the loan of the complainant under Hire purchase agreement No.TWH 132044, dated: 25.07.2002, with respect to the vehicle bearing No. KA-01-4464 as demanded by the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite party is also directed to pay cost of this litigation at Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
4. The opposite party is directed to send the amount to the complainant through DD and N.O.C. by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 27^th Day of April 2011)

MEMBER                                        MEMBER                           PRESIDENT