DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 81 of 17-03-2009<br /> Decided on : 18-08-2009 <br /> <br /> Deepak Singh aged about 32 years S/o Sh. Mirthu Singh, R/o Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Gali No. 9, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> ICICI Bank, The Mall, now on Bibi Wala Road, Chandsar Basti, Bathinda, through its Manager.<br /> ... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. J.P.S Brar,Advocate, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate<br /> counsel for the opposite party. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations that he purchased one motor-cycle for a total consideration of Rs. 32,415/-. He got his motor-cycle financed from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 16,168/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 16,287/- was paid by him from his own pocket. As per agreement, he was asked to deposit monthly installments of loan to the tune of Rs. 2450/-. He continued to pay the loan installments but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he failed to pay one installment after making payment of five installments. The opposite party forcibly snatched his motor-cycle with the help of some 'Gundas' in an illegal manner. Later on, it came to his knowledge that opposite party has procured duplicate copy of registration certificate from D.T.O. Bathinda. The complainant continued to approach the opposite party with the request that he is ready to pay all the installments and full amount due against him and his motor-cycle be returned to him, but the opposite party refused to return his motor-cycle rather a case was filed against him under Section 406/420 IPC. He avers that cause of action arose to him to file the complaint on 24-10-2005 when he was granted loan and also in the last week of March, 2007 when the opposite party snatched his motor-cycle forcibly and also when the opposite party refused to release his motor-cycle.<br /> 2. The opposite party contested the claim raising legal objections that complaint is hopelessly barred by time; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; complaint is not maintainable and it has been filed on false and frivolous facts.<br /> On merits, the allegations of the complainant are not admitted as correct and it has been averred that complainant was not given a loan of Rs. 16,168/- rather loan amount was Rs. 22,600/- which was payable in 10 monthly installments of Rs. 2,450/- each and in case of default, the complainant in writing authorised the bank to take possession of the vehicle. The complainant made repeated defaults in repayment of installments from the very beginning and this fact is concealed by him from this Forum. The cheques issued by the complainant for repayment of loan were dishonoured and as such strictly as per the terms of agreement the possession of the vehicle was taken. At the time of taking possession of the vehicle, he was in default of Rs. 14,347/-. The vehicle was taken into possession on 15-07-2006 and after taking possession of the vehicle, a legal notice dated 20-07-2006 was sent to the complainant whereby he was requested to deposit the due amount of loan, but the complainant did not make payment despite receiving notice as such, vehicle was sold and amount thereof was credited in the account of the complainant.<br /> 3. Both the parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 4. The complainant Sh. Deepak Singh has filed his two affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2, photocopy of R.C. Ex. C-3, photocopy of letter Ex. C-4, photocopy of retail invoice Ex. C-5 and photocopy of legal notice Ex. C-6.<br /> 5. In rebuttal, the opposite party produced in evidence affidavit of Sh. Vikas Bali, Manager Ex. R-1, photocopy of terms and conditions of loan Ex. R-2, photocopy of letter cum pre-sale notice Ex. R-3, photocopy of postal receipt Ex. R-4, photocopy of payment receipt Ex. R-5 and photocopy of statement of account Ex. R-6.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 7. It appears from the evidence of the complainant that complainant has suppressed material facts about defaults he committed in repayment of the installments of the loan amount and also about the correct date on which possession of the vehicle was taken over by the opposite party. In para No. 6 of his complaint, he has stated that motor-cycle was snatched from him in the last week of March, 2007 whereas according to the reply and affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Vikas Bali filed on behalf of the opposite party, it has been specifically stated in para No. 1 in both these documents that possession of the vehicle was taken on 15-07-2006 as per terms of the agreement and undertaking given by the complainant. It is an admitted fact that complainant presented complaint before this Forum on 17-03-2009 meaning thereby that the complaint has been filed after a lapse of period of more than two years when the possession of the vehicle was taken over by the opposite party. The complainant in para no. 6 of his complaint has mentioned the facts in distorted manner so as to bring his complaint within the span of two years whereas not only affidavit Ex. R-1 of the opposite party but also pre-sale notice dated 20-07-2006 Ex. R-3 and receipt Ex. R-5 prove the fact that vehicle was taken over in possession by the opposite party in July, 2006. Pre-sale notice Ex. R-3 was sent to the complainant on 20th July, 2006 and after public auction of the motor-cycle an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in the account of the complainant as per payment receipt Ex. R-5. <br /> 8. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that apparently the complaint has been filed by the complainant on manipulated and distorted facts after a period of limitation of two years in violation of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and it is definitely liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed material and true facts, as has been referred to herein above, and as such, he is not entitled for equitable relief as consumer from this Forum.<br /> 9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be indexed and consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 18-08-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br /> <br />