DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.252 of 07-06-2010 Decided on 15-10-2010 Kamaljit Singh son of Sh. Gurtej Singh, resident of village Genri Butter, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus ICICI Bank Limited, Bibiwala Road, 2924/38, Ist Floor, Gueenland Tower, Opp. Clock Tower, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. ICICI Bank, SCO 129-130, Sector 9C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory. Gurpreet Singh, Collection Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Bathinda. DP Prabhakar Esource Pvt. Ltd., Stock Yard, Jaspal Banger Road, village Pawa, B/s Vishkarma Alloys, P.O. Jaspal Banger, Distt. Ludhiana.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.H.S.Sidhu, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. In brief, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant has filed the present complaint with the allegations against the opposite parties that he had purchased Innova Car bearing registration No.PB-03Q-0023 after taking loan from ICICI Bank Ltd., Bathinda vide loan A/c No. LAB TN00006476924 of Rs.7,50,000/- and the same was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of Rs.16,500/- each as per the repayment schedule but the complainant due to some unavoidable circumstances, could not repay the loan amount. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No.1 through Sh. Mahavir Prasad, the then Collection Manager of the Bank, got registered a false case, FIR No.638 dated 19.10.2007, under Section 406/468/420 of IPC. The complainant was released on bail in the aforesaid case. The opposite party No.1 took the possession of the aforesaid car on sapurdari from the court of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Sh. Baljinder Singh. The opposite party No.1 has also filed a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant regarding dishonour of cheque and the complainant was released on bail in the said complaint and as per the compromise, the complainant deposited the full and final payment of Rs.7,40,000/- with the bank on 28.01.2010 through cheque No.031761 dated 28.01.2010 and settled the aforesaid loan account and the opposite party No.3 also suffered a statement before the Hon'ble Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bathinda on 28.01.2010 to the effect that a compromise has been effected with the complainant and N.O.C. and the aforesaid Innova car of the complainant will be returned back to the complainant within a period of three weeks and the aforesaid complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was also dismissed as withdrawn. On 10.02.2010, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.1 at Bathinda for taking the possession of the aforesaid Innova car as per compromise but the officials of the opposite party No.1 did not handover the keys of the car in question to the complainant. The officials of the opposite party No.1 supplied the release order and NOC to the complainant and on request of the complainant, the opposite party No.3 Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Collection Manager told the complainant about the loss of original key system of the car in question which was worth Rs.43,000/-. The complainant also found that both the front and back mirror (glasses) of the said car of the complainant had been broken worth Rs.18,000/- and Rs.8,500/- respectively; ECM system of the car value of which was Rs.30,000/- and Injector Box of Rs.45,000/- were also missing from the car in question and in this way, the condition of the car of the complainant was very deteriorated and the same was badly damaged by the bank officials. The complainant further alleged that the car was in perfect condition at the time of taking possession of the car by the bank officials from the custody of the police on Sapurdari. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed joint written statement and took legal objections. One of the legal objections is that the complainant was using the vehicle No.PB-03Q-0023 for commercial purposes. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form as vehicle of the complainant has been returned to the complainant in the same condition in which it was taken on supardari from the Hon'ble court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. The matter requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence as well as cross examination which can only be decided by the Civil Court. On merits, the opposite parties pleaded that the complainant was using the vehicle in question for commercial purpose and the complainant has sold the vehicle in question without permission of the bank official and was also defaulter in repaying the loan amount, as such FIR was registered and complainant remained in jail and FIR is still pending against the complainant. The opposite parties further pleaded that the complainant had never handed over the keys of the vehicle in question to the opposite parties and the glasses of the vehicle were already broken when opposite party took the possession of the vehicle with the permission of court and even ECM system and Injector Box were already missing when possession of the vehicle was taken from police by opposite party. They further pleaded that it was the duty of the complainant to take the possession back from the yard of opposite party and court never ordered for any payment to be made to complainant for taking delivery of the vehicle from Ludhiana. They have also denied that the complainant had hired any crane for towing his vehicle in question. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that Innova car bearing registration No.PB-03Q-0023 which was financed through ICICI Bank Ltd., Bathinda for Rs.7.5 lacs. The loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of Rs.16,500/- each but the complainant failed to pay the loan amount. FIR No.638 dated 19.10.2007 was lodged and criminal case under Section 406/468/420 IPC was registered against the complainant. The complainant deposited the full and final payment of Rs.7.4 lacs with the bank on 28.01.2010 through cheque No.031761. They entered into compromise before the Hon'ble Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. It was settled that NOC of the car in question of the complainant will be returned back to the complainant within a period of three weeks and the complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act, was also dismissed as withdrawn. When the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 on 10.02.2010 as per compromise, the opposite party No.1 i.e. bank did not handover the keys of the car in question to the complainant. The officials of the opposite party No.1 supplied the release order and NOC to the complainant and the opposite party No.3 Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Collection Manager told the complainant that the original key system of the car in question has been lost. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that both the front and back mirror (glasses) of the said car of the complainant had been broken. The cost of the same was of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.8,500/- respectively, ECM system of the car worth Rs.30,000/- and Injector Box of Rs.45,000/- were also missing from the car. The condition of the car was deteriorated and it was badly damaged by the bank officials. 6. The learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the matter requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence as well as cross examination when the possession of the vehicle in question was taken from the police by the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant has never approached the opposite parties to take delivery of the vehicle in question from them. A FIR was lodged against the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. A perusal of Ex.C-6 dated 19.10.2007 reveals as under:- “the complaint under Section 406,420,427,506,467,34,120 B IPC against the complainant Kamaljeet Singh R/o VPO Ghari Butter, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, Sir, I Mahavir Parsad, Collection Manager, ICICI Bank Limited 2047-Q, 2nd Floor, Bathinda is duly authorized by the ICICI Bank Limited to handle the operation in Bathinda. Brief facts of the complaint are as under:- (1) That the accused Kamaljeet Singh had applied and availed an auto loan of Rs.7.5 lacs on a car. Make Innova and the loan was disbursed by the ICICI Bank Limited on 03.04.2006 vide agreement No. TN00006476924. This agreement was duly executed by accused Kamaljeet Singh as Borrower in favour of ICICI Bank Limited, after admitting the contents of the same. (2) That the Finance amount of Rs.7.5 lacs has to be repaid in 60 equal monthly installments of Rs.16,500/- each from the very beginning the case, the accused starts defaulting. The postdated cheques those were given by the accused at the time of agreement were also bounced Intimation regarding the bouncing of cheques was duly given to the accused but the accused intentionally failed to deposit his monthly installments and dues under this loan agreement. Till date Rs.1,26,275/- is to be recoverable by the accused as defaulted amount and Rs.8.40,500/- is to be recoverable as future installments. Copy of the account statement is enclosed herewith. (3) That the accused has not registered the vehicle from the Concerned Registration Authority and bills are hypothecate in favour of complainant bank i.e. ICICI Bank Limited but the accused Kamaljeet Singh has sold the car under loan by forging the documents relating to the vehicle in question to some other person without prior consent from the complainant Bank. (4) That as per the clause 5 and 6 of the agreement it is mandatory upon to own and possess the car only for himself and not to mortgage pledge or sell the vehicle in any manner to any person. Further as per the clause 8 of the agreement accused is under obligation to permit the complainant bank and its representatives at all reasonable times inspect and examine the state and condition of the vehicle but the accused intentionally failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Despite of the default in depositing his monthly installments the accused had sold the car under loan agreement to one another person. All these acts and conducts of the accused are amounts to criminal breach of trust cheating and fraud. So, committed by the accused. (5) That the complainant bank has served legal notice dated 16.08.2006 to the accused through our counsel.” The complainant Kamaljeet Singh with malafide intention, has not made payment of loan and had sold the vehicle in question to some other person by preparing fake and illegal forged documents. In such circumstances, the bank took the vehicle in its possession. The full and final settlement was done and the case under Section 138 of IPC was withdrawn. The complainant has produced a letter dated 22.12.2009 Ex.C-8 in which he admitted that he is ready to pay Rs.7.5 lacs to the opposite party No.1 and if, he failed to pay this amount, the action can be taken against him. The compromise was done on 28.01.2010. The opposite party No.1 i.e. bank wrote a letter to D P Prabhakar Esource Pvt. Ltd. Ex.C-10 which is reproduced as under:- “Kindly release the INNOVA/ V Reg. No.PB03Q0023 kept in your yard belonging to Mr. KAMALJEET SINGH (Owner of vehicle) as Release Against Termination. Also kindly provide to him, other such accessories pertaining to the above said asset in case the same has been kept aside by your good selves for safety purpose and in the same condition in which it was kept with your yard. Kindly deliver the vehicle to the bearer. The parking charges for the above said vehicle would be payable by the company. Kindly do the needful and oblige. This letter is valid upto 96 hours from the date of issue.” Moreover, the criminal proceedings against the complainant are still pending u/s 406/468/420 IPC. No evidence has been placed on file to prove that these proceedings are decided. The complainant has produced on file bill dated 15.07.2010 Ex.C-13, Ex.C-14 dated 19.07.2010 and Ex.C-15 as Estimate/Quotation dated 19.07.2010 for his loss which he has suffered, when his car remained in the custody of opposite parties. The complainant has failed to produce any evidence on record to show that when his car was taken away by the opposite parties, its mirrors were intact the ECM system of the car and Injector Box were also intact in the vehicle in question. Ex.R-1 affidavit of Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Collection Manager in which, he deposed that the vehicle of the complainant has been returned to him in the same condition in which it was taken on supardari from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda and ECM system and Injector Box were already missing when possession of the vehicle was taken from police by opposite party, meaning thereby that the above mentioned objects were already missing and the mirrors were broken. 7. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that no deficiency in service has been proved on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 15.10.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
