Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/224/2012

Dharambir S/o Gurdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Sharma

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 224   of 2012.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 02.03.2012

                                                                                              Date of decision: 15.03.2016.

Dharamvir aged about 38 year’s son of Shri Gurdev Singh resident of House No.27, R.K. Puram Colony, Jorion, P.O. Aurangabad, Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. ICICI Bank Limited, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.
2. M/s Rohit Automobiles, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor.    

 

                                                                                                                … Respondents.

                       

BEFORE:-        SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Complainant in person.   

              Sh. K.K.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1

              Sh. Harvinder Aneja, Advocate, counsel for Op No.2.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Dharamvir has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking directions to the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) to supply the bill and other allied documents of the motorcycle with late fee on registration to the complainant as the vehicle could not be registered with the competent Registration Authority and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant had purchased a motorcycle Hero Honda CD Deluxe on 5.9.2007 from OP No.2 after taking loan from OP No.1 and paid Rs. 7000/- in advance to the agent of OP No.1 who used to sit in the office of Op No.2 and rest amount was got financed from Op Bank vide bank account no. LTYGR-00011326486. The agent of the op Bank after obtaining Rs. 7000/- and other necessary documents on 5.9.2007 had delivered the Motor bike to the complainant and told that complainant will receive the purchase bill/invoice and other documents after 2-3 days and when the complainant went after 2-3 days to the agent, he was asked to come after 15 days and again asked to come after one month. Ultimately, the complainant went to Op No.2 i.e. Rohit Automobiles but the agent of the bank was not there and on enquiry it comes to the notice that agent was not coming since last 15 days. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the bank where he received the information that the said agent had gone to Foreign and later on the Manager and other Employee of the Bank did not give any satisfactory reply where about of the agent. The complainant enquired the matter from the Manager of Op No.2 i.e. Rohit Automobiles who told to the complainant that amount of Rs. 3300/- was outstanding towards the complainant because the bank has not sent the entire amount of the loan and either the complainant deposit the said amount or the bank should clear the balance amount. The complainant got financed his Motorcycle with the op bank and despite this bank has not sent the balance amount to the OP No.2. Thus, it was obligatory on the part of OP No.1 bank to deposit the said amount of Rs. 3300/- with the Op No.2 and also it was obligatory on the part of OP No.2 to supply the bill and other documents to the complainant, so, that vehicle can be got registered in time by the complainant with the Registration Authority (M.V.) Jagadhri.

3.                     Since the OP No.1 failed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 3300/- with the OP No.2 for which Rs. 7000/- in advance had already been deposited by the complainant with the agent of bank, as such finding no other alternative and having felt aggrieved and humiliated at the hands of the bank for negligence and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 1078 of 12.11.2010 before this Forum claiming the relief for directing the OP No.1 Bank to deposit the balance loan amount alongwith interest and to pay late fee on account of registration of the vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs. 15000/- for mental agony and harassment etc. This Forum disposed off the complaint with the direction to implead the OP No.2 who was necessary party to decide the complaint. Accordingly, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant after impleading the OP No.2.

 4.                    The complainant inspite of above uncalled for act on the part of Ops, paid 13 installments out of 18 installments and did not pay the rest installments due to not handing over the bill and other documents which were necessary for registration of his motorcycle. The complainant is facing hardship as he remains apprehension every time in his mind for confiscation of vehicle by traffic police for want of registration. Lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint and directing the OPs to handover the bill and other documents of the motorcycle in question altogether with late fee on registration and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Hence this complaint.

5.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement separately by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complaint is baseless, frivolous and misleading the facts, complicated question of facts relating to account are involved which cannot be decided in summary nature, does not fall under the definition of consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Act, no relationship of consumer and service provider as the complainant had availed a credit facility from the OP no.1 bank and complainant is bound by its terms and conditions of the agreement and on merit it has been mentioned that the invoice cost of the said motorcycle was Rs. 34500/- and for the purchase of the same complainant was suppose to pay his contribution of Rs. 7950/- and the remaining cost/amount of Rs. 26550/- was funded by OP No.1. Further it has been submitted that bill/invoice was to be supplied by the dealer i.e. OP No.2 to the customer, so, question of alleged documents by any official of the bank/answering respondent does not arise at all. It has been further mentioned that Op Bank has disbursed the credit facility of Rs. 26550/- on 7.6.2007 vide credit/loan facility account no. LTYGR-00011326486 upon the execution of credit facility agreement and other necessary documents wherein it was agreed and undertake by the complainant that he shall punctually and regularly repay the agreed amount of Rs. 31,684/- i.e. Rs. 26550/- principal plus interest thereon Rs. 5098/- vide 18 equated monthly installments of Rs. 1773/- each. These installments were commencing from 10.10.2007 and were ending on 10.3.2009. The complainant also agreed through the said agreement to make timely and regular payment of schedule EMIs alongwith agreed rate of interest at the rate of 22.83% per annum without committing any default. Copy of credit facility agreement was provided to the complainant upon execution of the said agreement. The complainant also executed unattested deed of hypothecation agreement in favour of Op No.1 and he is bound by its terms and conditions. After availing the loan, the complainant paid EMIs from 10.10.2007 to 10.5.2008 i.e. First (1) installment to eight(8) installment, however, failed to pay rest EMIs on due dates which is evident from the statement attached herewith. Lastly it has been stated that as per credit/loan facility account maintained by the OP Bank in regular course of business an amount of Rs. 21466/- is due/outstanding and payable by the complainant to OP No.1 as on 4.6.2012 but with an ill intention, the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Forum. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 Bank.

6.                     OP No.2 also filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such no locus standi, complaint is not maintainable, concealed the true and material facts from this Forum, complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct, no cause of action and on merit it has been admitted that complainant purchased Hero Honda CD Deluxe on 5.9.2007 and paid only Rs. 6250/- and purchased some accessories from Op No.2 on the same day. In fact previously the OP No.1 Bank financed the vehicle for Rs. 29150/- but when the OP No.1 Bank scrutinize the documents properly, they passed Rs. 25848/- and the same was paid to OP No.2 on 7.9.2007 and in this way remaining amount of Rs. 3302/- was due against the complainant, which was not paid by the complainant and still Op No.2 is entitled to recover the said amount from the complainant. Rest contents of the complaint were denied. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 as there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2.

7.                     As the complainant failed to lead any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on 14.11.2014. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents such as Photo copy of order/judgment dated 02.01.2012 passed by our predecessor Annexure-1, Photo copy of letter written to ICICI Bank Annexure-2, Photo copy of delivery challan of C.D. Deluxe motorcycle Annexure-3, Photo copy of receipt of amounting to Rs. 650/- as Annxure-4 with the complaint in support of his complaint. 

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shubham Officer of ICICI Bank as Annexure RX and documents such as Photo copy of application/complaint against ICICI Bank made to Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of statement of account as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of order/judgment dated 02.01.2012 as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. However, counsel for the OP No.2 closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2 on 14.11.2014 without tendering any document.

9.                     We have heard both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

10.                   It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased motorcycle Hero Honda CD Deluxe valued of Rs 34500/- on 5.9.2007 from Op No.2 i.e Rohit Automobiles after taking loan from Op No.1 Bank and for the purchase of the same complainant was suppose to pay his contribution and the remaining cost/amount was funded by OP No.1. Further it has been submitted that bill/invoice was to be supplied by the dealer i.e. OP No.2 to the customer,

11.                   After going through the pleadings, we feel that the only grievances’ of the complainant is that he purchased motorcycle from the Op no.2 on 05.09.2007 and paid Rs 7000/- in cash to OP No.2 Rohit Automobile which is evident from Annexure 3 & 4 and remaining amount was to be paid directly by the op no.1 Bank to the op no.2 as complainant was got financed his motorcycle in question from op no.1 Bank through bank who was sitting in the agency of the op no.2. But the op no.2 i.e. Rohit Automobiles not handed over the bills/invoice and other documents which were necessary for registration of the Motorcycle in question despite many requests and on inquires from the manager of the op no.2, it comes to the notice of the complainant that op no.1 bank disbursed the less loan amount of Rs.3300/-to the op no.2, due to this reason Op No.2 not released documents and the complainant could not get registered the motorcycle in question in his name and faced so many hardships, mental agony and further will be burndened with late fee for registration etc.  

12                    We have perused the para no. 3 of the written statement filed by the op no.2 in which it has been mentioned that previously the OP No.1 Bank financed the vehicle for Rs. 29150/- but later on when the OP No.1 Bank scrutinize the documents properly, they passed Rs. 25848/- only and the same was paid to OP No.2 on 7.9.2007 and in this way remaining amount of Rs. 3302/- was due against the complainant, which was not paid by the complainant and still Op No.2 is entitled to recover the said amount from the complainant. This version of the op no.2 is totally corroborated with the version of the complaint whereas op no.1 Bank has not filed any documentary evidence to controvert the version of the complainant as well of the op no.2. Op no.1 Bank has only filed the bank account statement of the account of the complainant but failed to file loan documents executed by the complainant. Even the op no.1 Bank has not bothered to file any affidavit of so-called agent who got executes the loan documents from the complainant to controvert the version of the complainant. The plea of the op no1 bank is not tenable that the complainant is defaulter of the bank as from the perusal of the account statement it is clear that complainant was paying his installments/ EMIs regularly from 10.10.2007 to 10.5.2008 i.e. First (1) installment to eight (8) installment, but stops to pay remaining installments as the neither the op,no.2 handed over the bill/invoice with other documents nor the op no.1 paid full amount to the op no.2 despite that complainant executed entire  loan documents for full remaining loan amount which was to be paid to the op no.2. It is not the version of the op no.1 bank that complainant had not executed the loan documents as per their requirement. Further op no.1 Bank has not place any letter or documents vide which the complainant was asked to deposit less amount i.e. Rs.3300/- with the op no.2 as they have reduced this amount on account of  scrutinize the documents properly later on. 

13.                   It was also duty of the op no.2 that on receiving the less amount from the op no.1 bank, immediately informed to the complainant and asked him to deposit the amount of Rs.3300/- with them but as no documentary evidence has been filed by the op no.1 bank or op no.2 that they ever informed to the complainant, so we are of the considered view that both the ops were negligent due to the reason best known to them.

14.                   Further the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OP No.1 Bank that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as the loan in question was sanctioned by the OP Bank on 7.9.2007 and the present complaint has been filed on 02.03.2012 is not tenable as the complainant has mentioned in his complaint that he had earlier filed a consumer complaint No. 1078 of 2010 which was disposed of on 02.01.2012 with the liberty to file fresh complaint by impleading the OP No.2 within a period of 60 days from the passing of this order and in pursuance of this order the complainant filed the present complaint on 02.03.2012 within the stipulated period.  Moreover, as per version of OP No.1 installments of the loan is pending against the complainant. Even, the documents i.e. bill/invoice has also not handed over by the Op No.2 to the complainant till date, meaning thereby that cause of action is still continue.

15.                   Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 further argued that complainant was himself negligent as he has neither paid the amount of Rs 3300/- to the OP No.2 nor paid the installments to the OP No.1 Bank. As the complainant not paid Rs. 3300/- to OP No.2, hence the documents were not handed over to the complainant, so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 but the arguments advanced by counsel for the OPs is also not tenable as on the first ground that it was the duty of OP No.2 to handover the invoice/bill and other documents which were necessary to register the motorcycle in question to the complainant immediately on the first day of the sale of the motorcycle i.e. on 05.09.2007 as both the OPs has not rebutted the version of the complainant that on that date i.e. on 5.9.2007 the complainant not deposited his share/contribution with OP No.1 or Op No.2. When the motorcycle in question was handed over by Op No.2 to the complainant then it presumed that all the loan documents and payments by way of finance or cash was handed over to OP No.2. Otherwise also, if we presumed that Op No.2 received less amount from the OP No.1 later on even then the Op No.2 was not having any right to withheld the invoice/bill and other documents which were necessary for registering the motorcycle in question with the Registering Authority  because as per section 39 of Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 no person shall drive any motor vehicle in a public place or any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the chapter IV and certificate of registration.  In this way, Op No.2 has compelled to the complainant to commit an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act which constitute also deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.2.  Although the complainant himself may be at some fault but we are of the considered view that complainant was forced not to pay the installments regularly by the OPs as neither the OP No.1 paid the full amount of the financed amount to OP No. 2 nor the OP No.2 handed over the bill/invoice and other necessary documents to the complainant whereas both the OPs were having otherwise remedies to recover the said less amount of Rs. 3300/- from the complainant by giving in writing the notice or debited the account of the complainant. But inspite of all these facts Op No.2 adopted unfair trade practice by not handing over the Bill/necessary documents to the complainant.

16.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of both the OPs. So, in these circumstances noted above, we have no option except to partly allow the present complaint and thus we direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of this order.

i)          To pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. 5000/- each) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

ii)         OP No.1 is also directed not to charge any penal interest or penalty from the complainant on the remaining loan amount from the date of payment of last installment deposited with Op No.1 by the complainant.

iii)         OP No.2 is also directed to handover the Bill/ requisite papers to the complainant for registration of his motorcycle.

iv)        OP No.2 is further directed to pay the late fee to the complainant, if imposed upon the complainant for late registration of his vehicle in question.

v)         OP No.2 is further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

                         The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period otherwise complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 15.03.2016.

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER