Date of filing : 20-11-2008 Date of order : 12-01-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC. No. 255/08 Dated this, the 12th day of January 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Stanley, S/o.George, H.No.5/806, Uliyathada, Po.Madhur, } Complainant Kasaragod. (Adv.A.Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod) 1. I.C.I.C.I.Bank Ltd, Emgee Squre, } Opposite parties M.G.Road, Cochin. (Adv. Rajesh .V.Nair Thalasseri,Adv Udayakumar, Kasaragod) 2. Rahul, Agent ICICI Bank, Office, Opposite I.B.P. Petrol Bunk, Nullipady, Kasaragod. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The skeletal facts of the complaint are as follows: Complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL-14/F 7770. He availed a loan from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 who is the collecting agent of opposite party No.1. Since complainant committed some default in the monthly EMI payments opposite party illegally repossessed the vehicle in June 2008. On search made by the complainant he could see his well maintained vehicle parked by the opposite party in an open yard exposed to rain, heat, dust. The vehicle was having a market value of Rs.1,10,000/- at the time of seizure by opposite party No.1. The opposite parties did not assess the value of the vehicle at the time of re-possession. Though complainant approached opposite party several times to get back the vehicle, opposite party turned down on his request. The complainant also submitted 25 blank cheque leaves of Catholic Syrian bank, Kasaragod Branch to opposite party No.1 while availing the loan. 2. The complainant altogether remitted Rs.74,993/-towards the loan account out of the total loan amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. Hence the complaint for an order to refund the amount Rs.74,993/- that he paid towards instalments and a Rs.10,000/- by way of damages and cost of the proceedings. 3. According to opposite party No.1 the total amount availed by the complainant was Rs.1,04,000/- and complainant paid 19 instalments of Rs.3947/-each. Thereafter he willfully defaulted the payment of the loan. Though notice was issued to him to repay the amount, complainant failed to pay the amount. Hence the vehicle was repossessed. It was not forcibly repossessed. The market value of the vehicle as shown by the complainant is not correct. He has not maintained the vehicle properly. In the hypothecation agreement complainant agreed to repossess the vehicle in case the instalments were defaulted. The opposite parties has not done anything to repossess the vehicle. As on 28-11-2008 the complainant is liable to pay Rs.67470/- to opposite parties and though it was informed to the complainant, he failed to pay the amount which is against the contract entered by the complainant. The complainant can pay the entire loan balance and take back the vehicle. The complainant is not entitled to get back the amount he paid towards the loan i.e. Rs.74,993/-. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. Complainant filed an affidavit as PW1 in lieu of oral evidence. Ext.A1 series receipts marked. On the part of opposite parties Ext.B1 marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant. 5. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 illegally repossessed the vehicle in June 2008 and at the time of re-possession it would have cost Rs.1,10,000/- in the market. Since the opposite party is kept the vehicle in an open yard exposed to sun light, heat, dust and rain the value of the vehicle is diminished and became worthless. Hence prays for the return of Rs.74,993/- he paid towards the loan with compensation. Ext.A1 series (18 Nos) shows that complainant had remitted 19 instalments of Rs.3947/- each totalling Rs.74,993/-. 6. The repossession of the vehicle through unlawful means is not justifiable at any circumstances. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a recent decision reported in 2009 CTJ 840 (CP)(NCDRC) in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. V. Indrason Choubey and Others has held as follows: “Many financiers/banks are in race for giving loan for purchase of vehicles and other articles. After giving loan and taking interest in advance the polite behaviour charges because of the documents signed by the borrowers on dotted lines. On occasions, the borrowers suffer harassment, torture or even abuses at the hands of musclemen of the lenders. Let the rule of law prevail and not that of jungle where might is right.” 7. While rendering the above judgment the Hon’ble NCDRC has relied on the decisions of it’s earlier judgment in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd V. S. Vijayalaxmi reported in 2007 CTJ 1145(CP) and also on the decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank V. Praksh Kaur & Others reported in (2007)2SCC 871 in the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under “Now the bank is the aggressor and the public is the victim. The first step to recover of the money due is through the so-called recovery/collection agents. A very dignified term used for paid recovery agents who are individuals and independent contractors hired by the banks both to trace the defaulters and to physically mentally and emotionally torture and force them into submitting their dues. A man’s self-respect, stature in society are immaterial to the agent who is only primed at recovery. This is the modernized version of Shylock’s pound of flesh. No explanation is given regarding the interest charge and the bank takes cover under the guise of the holders of the card or loan having signed the agreement whose fine print is never read or explained to the owner.” 8. Applying the dictums laid down in the instant case it is clear that the opposite party No.1 repossessed the vehicle illegally and it amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant not only lost his money that he paid in instalments but also the vehicle. This is nothing but an unjust enrichment of opposite party at the expenses of complainant. 9. The complainant is therefore entitled to get back the instalments he paid to the opposite parties i.e. Rs.74,993/-. In the result complaint is allowed and opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.74,993/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs.3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for R$s.74,993/- from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Series (18 Nos). Receipts. B1. Account statement from 14-07 -2000 to 14-07-09. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
