DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 62 of 06-03-2007<br /> Decided on :17-05-2007<br /> <br /> Ajaib Singh S/o Satpal Singh, R/o Village Kartar Singh Wala, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. ICICI Bank, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Manager.<br /> 2. ICICI Bank, 137 Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Manager.<br /> 3. Mahabir Singh, Recovery Manager, ICICI Bank, The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. H.S. Mahal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> Opposite party No. 3 exparte.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Loan was applied for by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 for purchasing Motorcycle. All the formalities were completed. Facility of loan was extended to him in the month of January, 2005. Total repayable loan amount to opposite party No. 1 was Rs. 24,000/- including principal amount and interest thereon. As per agreement entered into between him and opposite party No. 1 loan amount was to be repaid in 24 monthly installments of Rs. 1,000/-each. This amount was to be deposited in the bank account No. 525234 with opposite party No. 1. In case of delay in making payment of the installment, the amount was to be deposited in account No. 3347934. After availing the facility of loan, motorcycle was purchased by him. It was got registered with the registering authority, Bathinda. Registration No. PB-03N-4189 was allotted to him. He made payment of 23 monthly installments to opposite party No. 1. It is further added by him that one monthly installment is due. It is alleged by him that in December, 2006, opposite party No. 3 illegally and forcibly snatched his motorcycle. Since then, it is in the custody of the opposite parties. Despite his repeated requests, it has not been returned. Rather they delivered letter dated 15.2.07 to him demanding Rs. 15,369.41 as the amount due towards him. He alleges that this demand is illegal, null and void, unconstitutional and against the principle of natural justice as the amount is not recoverable from him. Motorcycle is liable to be returned as he is ready and willing to pay the amount of one monthly installment. Opposite parties are trying to sell the motorcycle. If they succeed in doing so, there would be irreparable loss to him. Act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused him mental agony and tension. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to return his motorcycle forthwith; get the amount of one monthly installment deposited from him; issue no due certificate; pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses and opposite parties be restrained from selling the motorcycle illegally and forcibly.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in view of the Judgment delivered by Hon'ble State Commission Punjab in Appeal No. 1405 of 2004; complaint has been filed on false facts; only remedy available to the complainant is to file civil suit for rendition of account, as there is relationship of debtor and creditor between the parties and complaint requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence which can be led in civil court. On merits, their version is that total amount payable was Rs. 22,000/- and not Rs. 24,000/-. After availing the loan facility, motorcycle was purchased by the complainant. He committed default in the repayment of the loan amount. Cheques issued by him were dishonoured as he was depositing the amount of Rs. 1,000/- in his saving bank account and he did not maintain minimum balance of Rs. 5,000/- in his this account. Accordingly amount of Rs. 1,000/- deposited by him was deducted as minimum balance charges. Almost all the cheques issued by him were dishonoured. As per agreement, he was supposed to pay cheque bouncing charges of Rs. 200/- on each dishonour of cheque. While executing the agreement complainant had agreed that in case of default in loan, bank would be entitled to take possession of the vehicle. He had further agreed to deposit installment on the 7th of every month. He committed default in repayment. Even legal notice dated 5/9/06 was issued to him. Hence, he was in default of Rs. 9606/- on 23.12.06. Bank is entitled to repossess the vehicle even on default of Rupee 1/-.. Complainant of his free will had surrendered the vehicle. As per terms of the agreement, he could get his loan foreclosed by making the complete payment but he never made request to this effect. Bank was asking him in writing to foreclose his loan account by making payment of Rs. 15,166/-. Amount has been rightly demanded. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party No. 3. He was served personally. He did not come present. Accordingly, he was proceeded against exparte on 16.3.07.<br /> 4. In support of his averments in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-27), photocopy of vehicle loan cum Hypothecation agreement (Ex. C-1), photocopy of account statement (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Foreclosure statement (Ex. C-3), photocopies of acknowledgements (Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5), photocopy of Pay in slip (Ex. C-6), photocopies of acknowledgements (Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9), photocopies of Pay in slips (Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-22), copy of legal notice (Ex. C-25), and postal receipt (Ex. C-26).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. Ashish Bansal, Collection Manager (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Pre sale notice (Ex. R-2), photocopy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt (Ex. R-3) and copy of account statement (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 7. Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vehementally argued that complaint is not maintainable before this forum as it pertains to settlement of account. Remedy available to the complainant is to file civil suit for rendition of account. Moreover, he is not consumer.<br /> 8. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant has proved his case by way of producing documentary evidence in the shape of Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-27. He has deposited Rs. 19,000/- in account No. 525234 vide receipts copies of which are Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-21 and Ex. C-23. Remaining amount of Rs. 4442/- was deposited by him in account No. 3347934 vide receipts, copies of which are Ex. C-22 & Ex. C-24. Only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- is due which complainant is ready and willing to deposit. Demand of Rs. 15,369.41 raised by opposite party No. 1 through letter dated 15.2.07, copy of which is Ex. C-3 is illegal, null and void. Motorcycle has been illegally snatched by the opposite parties and is liable to be returned.<br /> 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Admittedly, complainant has availed loan for the purchase of motorcycle by way of entering into an agreement with the opposite parties, copy of which is Ex. C-1. He has not deposited the remaining amount despite notices dated 4.2.07 and 5.9.06, copies of which are Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3. Vehicle has been seized. Bank being the financer does not render any service. Accordingly, complainant is not consumer in view of the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Ram Deshlahara Vs. Megma Leasing Limited 2006(3) CLT page 330.<br /> 10. Apart from the above, dispute pertains to accounts between the parties. Complainant asserts that amount of all the installments except one which is of Rs. 1000/- has been deposited by him. Admittedly complainant has saving bank account No. 525234. His loan account number is 3347934. Loan installments were to be deposited in loan account number. Most of the amount has been shown to have been deposited through Pay-in-slip in the saving bank account. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 allege that complainant did not maintain minimum balance in his saving bank account. Almost all the cheques issued by him were dishonoured. He was supposed to pay bouncing charges and over due charges. Fact regarding bouncing of some of the cheques has been mentioned in the copy of the statement of account No. 3347934, copy of which is Ex. C-2. This fact has also been recorded in the statement of account of A/c No. 525234, copy of which is Ex. R-4. Material question for determination is as to what is the effect of deposit of the amount in saving bank account and dishonouring of the cheques ? Similarly it is to be determined as to whether complainant is liable to pay over due amount, cheque bouncing charges and minimum balance charges ? Similarly questions involved are as to whether complainant is liable to pay the amount of one installment only or Rs. 15,369.41 was due as has been shown in the letter dated 15.2.07, copy of which is Ex. C-3? Similarly another question which falls for determination is as to whether amount deposited by him in saving bank account requires adjustment in the other account i.e. loan account ? Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 allege that complainant is defaulter and has committed default in the repayment of loan amount which was payable in installments. Facts and circumstances clearly establish the relationship of complainant with the opposite parties as that of borrower and debtor. Dispute pertains to accounts between the parties particularly when complainant alleges that amount of one installment is due towards him whereas opposite parties through letter dated 15.2.07 allege that a sum of Rs. 15,369.41 is outstanding. Detailed evidence for adjudication of the matter in controversy is required which can be led in civil court. This forum in summary procedure cannot adjudicate these intricate questions involved in this complaint. In such a situation, complaint is not maintainable before this forum because the version and counter-version relate to accounts. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing Industries Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Others 1991 CPJ-341. Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab has also expressed the same view in the case of K.K. Foams Industries and Another Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation & Another 2004(2) JRC-30. Reference can also be made to the authorities Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Vs. Himanshu S. Thumar 2005 CTJ-791 (CP)(SCDRC), Vishal Roadways Vs. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd. III(1998) CPJ-9 (NC), M/s. House of Dubary Vs. New Bank of India 1991-CPC-391 (NC) and Kehar Singh Vs. M/s. Satish Kumar Surinder Kumar 1997(I)CPC 589.<br /> 11. Since this Forum cannot try and adjudicate the complaint in view of the discussion made above, merits of the case are not being touched.<br /> 12. In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court for getting his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted <br /> by law. <br /> Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 17-05-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />