DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

  Consumer Complaint No.131 of 2015

                                   Date of institution:  24.03.2015                                          Date of decision: 26.10.2017 

National Mechanical & Structural Company(P) Ltd., Regd. Address, Plot No.E-7, Phase 7, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Presently # 10, Phase 3A, SAS Nagar, Mohali). Branch Office: Saini Form House, Barwala Mubarak Road, Village Sundran, Teh. Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, through its Managing Director, Sh. Jaswant Singh Saini.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.  ICICI Bank Ltd. through its Chairman, Corporate Office: ICICI Bank Towers,Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051.

2.   ICICI Bank Ltd., through its Managing Director, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, Gujrat, India-390007.

3.   Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.180-181, IInd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

4.   Ms. Mamta Goel, Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Near NK Sharma, Near Reebok Showroom, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, NAC Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

5.   Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.72, Phase-9, SAS Nagar Mohali-160062.

                                                …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present :           Sh. Arun Batra, counsel  for the complainant.                     None for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                Complainant, National Mechanical & Structural Company(P) Ltd., has filed this complaint through its Managing Director, Sh. Jaswant Singh Saini against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.            The complainant purchased Mahindra & Mahindra Scorpio Car (Regd. No. PB-65E-1555) for its use with the financial assistant of OP No.3, who advanced Rs.6,90,000/- towards the loan amount to the complainant on 05.08.2016 and monthly installment of Rs.14,691/- was fixed for 60 months for the repayment of the loan amount. The mode of repayment was through post dated cheques. On 14.12.2007 the said vehicle was stolen and an FIR No.201 dated 14.12.2007 was got registered at Police Station Sector-19, Chandigarh. The complainant informed OP No.4 on 19.12.2007 about the theft of the vehicle. The complainant also lodged claim with OP No.5 and completed all the formalities with regard to the settlement of the claim.  Thereafter, OP No.5 informed the complainant, vide letter dated 24.04.2008 (received on 08.05.2008) that the vehicle in question has been recovered by the police and is lying at  Bhatindi Police Station in Jammu & Kashmir.  The complainant vide letter dated 14.08.2008 informed counsel of OP No.3 that the vehicle was not in his possession and that his claim is pending with OP No.5. The complainant received summons from State Legal Services Authority for appearance on 18.08.2008 but the complainant could not appear as his claim was pending with OP No.5. The complainant approached the court at Jammu on 22.12.2008 but could not receive the vehicle on superdari as he was not having financial resources to furnish Bank Guarantee. The claim of the complainant is still not settled by OP No.5.  OP No.3 vide letter dated 22.07.2010 authorised Pardeep S Saini & Associate to handle the loan account of the complainant. On 01.12.2014 the complainant opened current account No.050705500236 with OP No.4 and at times there was balance of more than Rs.10.00 lakhs in this account. On 07.03.2015 the complainant deposited Rs.14,99,400/- with OP No.5 through cheque and balance amount was Rs.15,12,479/-. On 07.03.2015 the MD of the complainant approached OP No.4 for withdrawal of Rs.2,25,000/- through cheque, however, OP No.4 informed that there was no balance in the account and amount of Rs.14,66,479/- had been debited on account of outstanding loan of car without advance notice to the complainant. The complainant informed OP No.4 that mode of payment of vehicle loan was through post dated cheques and the present account never authorised for lien of the loan account.  The MD of the complainant many a times requested OP No.4 to release the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- which was urgently required but to no avail. On 12.03.2015 the complainant presented the cheque but OP No.4 wrote on the reverse of the cheque that due to lien in the account, the cheque amount is not debited and cannot be passed.  On 12.03.2015 the complainant served legal notice to the OPs against illegal debit of funds by OP No.4. On 13.03.2015 the complainant filed a complaint before SHO, PS Zirakpur regarding unfair trade practice and setting of funds of the complainant by OP No.4. Similar complaint was made to SSP, Mohali.  OP No.1 to 4 have illegally set the amount of Rs.14,66,479/- against  the vehicle loan without affording any opportunity to the complainant which has caused harassment, mental agony and embarrassment to the complainant as the complainant could not pay the salary to its employees at the construction site.  Hence, the complainant has sought direction to the OPs to deposit an amount of Rs.14,66,479/- which has been illegally withdrawn against the vehicle loan alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 07.03.2015 till the actual date of payment; to pay him Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.             The complaint has been contested by the OPs. OP No.1 to 4 in its separate written statement have pleaded that the bank exercises its right of lien on account of non payment of its dues. The intention of the complainant was not to pay the dues  of the bank against loan and the bank was able to trace the complainants accounts and rightfully exercised its right of lien. The bank can exercise its right of lien and adjust the accounts by transferring money from one account of the debtor to another account. Both the accounts are of the complainant and the bank was entitled to create lien and to adjust the amount lying in one account for the purpose of clearance of dues lying in another account.  The dispute raised in the present complaint can only be settled by reconciliation of account. The relation between the complainant and the bank was that of customer and businessman. The complainant is not a consumer and does not fall within the ambit of Section 2 (1) (c) and (e) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant availed the loan from the OP bank in 2006 and had failed to clear the dues. The complainant was repeated requested to clear the dues but to no avail. As on 05.03.2015 the complainant was in default of Rs.14,66,065/-. Intimation of lien was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 05.03.2015 and the complainant was also informed about the debit and subsequent credit into his car loan account vide letter dated 17.03.2015. On merits, the OPs have denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and have sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP No.5 in its separate written reply has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant is not consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has distorted the facts and tried to mislead this Forum by making misstatement. There are disputed and complicated questions of facts and law involved in the case and the dispute is beyond the purview of Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the OP No.5 has denied pendency of any claim with it as it has already informed the complainant that the vehicle had been got traced by the police and the complainant had to get the same released from police authorities.  It is not the duty of OP No.5 to get the vehicle released and only the owner can get the vehicle released.  Denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.5 has also sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

5.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of Jaswant Singh Saini, MD of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of letter dated 07.03.2015 Ex.C-1; RC Ex.C-2; statement of accounts Ex.C-3; FIR Ex.C-4; letters dated 14.12.2007, 19.12.2007, 14.08.2008 Ex.C-5 to C-7; summons Ex.C-8; letters dated 03.02.2009 and 22.07.2010 Ex.C-9 and C-10; statement of accounts Ex.C-11; cheque dated 07.03.2015 Ex.C-12; deposit slip dated 12.03.2015 Ex.C-13; legal notice dated 09.03.2015 Ex.C-14; four postal receipts Ex.C-15; letters dated 13.03.2015 Ex.C-16 and letter to SSP, Mohali Ex.C-17. In rebuttal, the evidence of the OP No.1 to 4 consists of affidavit of Jeevan Garg, their Manager Ex.OP-1/1; application form Ex.OP-1/2 and credit facility application form Ex.OP-1/3. OP No.5 did not lead any evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written submissions of the parties.

7.             Admittedly, the vehicle loan was advanced to the complainant on 05.08.2006 by OP No.3 to the tune of Rs.6,90,000/-. The repayment was to be made at monthly installment of Rs.14,691/- for 60 months. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the vehicle was stolen on 14.12.2007 and intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was duly conveyed to OP No.4 and 5 vide Ex.C-5 and C-6.  Learned counsel has further submitted that OP No.5 informed him on 24.04.2008 that the vehicle of the complainant has been recovered by policy and is lying at Bhatini Police Station in Jammu & Kashmir.  However, the complainant could not get the vehicle on supardari from the court as he was not having financial resources to furnish bank guarantee.  Learned counsel has further submitted that the claim of the complainant was not settled by OP No.5 and the OPs have marked lien on the account of the complainant without his consent and debited an amount of Rs.14,66,479/- towards the outstanding car loan.  However, the OP No.1 to 4 in the written statement have reproduced contents of letter dated 05.03.2015 in which it was informed to the complainant  that despite sufficient time and opportunity he has neglected to clear the outstanding dues under the Consumer Loan Account No.LACHD00007139526.  The complainant was asked to pay total outstanding amount of Rs.14,66,065/- within 10 days from the date of this letter failing which the OPs would exercise their right of lien in conformity with terms and conditions of loan. The complainant did not respond to this letter and after lapse of period of 10 days the OPs vide another letter dated 17.03.2015 informed the complainant that they have debited  his saving/current account No.050705500236 for Rs.14,66,065/- which has been debited to the vehicle loan account of the complainant towards outstanding amount payable by him.  Thus, from the perusal of these letters it cannot be said that the OP No.1 to 4 marked lien on the other account of complainant without any intimation to him.  Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the bank was authorised to mark lien on the other account of the complainant to recover the outstanding loan amount.  In this regard the OPs haves relied upon decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Allahabad Bank & Anr. Vs. Sushil Kumar Das, 1996 (3) CPR 133, wherein it has been held that Bank could invoke its power of general lien over FDRs standing in the name of the complainant.  As the OPs have given sufficient time to clear the outstanding loan amount and on failure of the complainant to do so, the OPs have rightly exercised their right of lien.  Thus, in view of the decision of Hon’ble National Commission Allahabad Bank & Anr. Vs. Sushil Kumar Das (supra), we do not find anything amiss on the part of the OPs.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case law, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 26.10.2017

                                      (A.P.S.Rajput)
 President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member