Haryana

Kurukshetra

217/2018

Karambir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indisuland Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Kalra

24 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.217 of 2018.

Date of instt.:11.10.2018.

                                                                        Date of Decision:24.01.2019.

Karambir Singh, aged 38 years son of Sh. Sahab Singh, resident of Village Rawa, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

1. Indusind Bank Limited, Kurukshetra Road, Pipli, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. Indusind Bank Limited, North Region Office at 3^rd floor Vasant Square Masll Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, through its Regional Manager.
3. Vishwakarma Automobiles, Ladwa Road, Pipli, District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor/Manager.

 

..………OPs.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                       Ms. Neelam, Member.

                       Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present :       Sh. Pankaj Kalra, Advocate for complainant.

                       OPs already exparte.

                                         

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Karambir Singh against Indusind Bank Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one tractor make Sonalika from the Op No.3 on 28.09.2015 total amounting to Rs.6,15,000/- and out of the total value of above-said tractor, the complainant made the payment of Rs.2,15,000/- in cash to the Op No.3 and for the remaining amount, the complainant obtained a vehicle loan to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- from the Ops No.1 & 2 through Op No.3.  After getting the loan, the complainant was paying the installments regularly to the Op No.1.  The complainant requested the Ops to provide him the statement of account and to disclose the amount due in the account but despite repeated requests, nothing was done and even the registration certificate of the tractor was also not provided to him.  It is further alleged that on 28.04.2018, the representatives of Ops came to the fields of complainant in his absence and they forcibly and illegally took away the tractor from the driver of complainant without any prior intimation and notice to the complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to return the tractor in question or in the alternative, to pay the value of the tractor tentatively assessed to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss, harassment, mental agony and torture as-well-as Rs.50,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.             Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 21.11.2018.

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.   

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased the tractor in question from the Op No.3 on 28.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- and out of the total value of above-said tractor, the complainant made the payment of Rs.2,15,000/- in cash to the Op No.3 and for the remaining amount, the complainant obtained a vehicle loan to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- from the Ops No.1 & 2 through Op No.3.  The complainant was paying the installments regularly.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 28.04.2018, the representatives of the Ops forcibly and illegally took away the tractor from the driver of complainant.  The said act of Ops is illegal and requested for return of the tractor in question.  The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by him in the complaint.  Besides the affidavit, the complainant has tendered into evidence the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.  The counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case cited in 2010(2) CPC page 565 titled as Tata Finance Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Kaushal.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to return the tractor of the complainant.  However, it is made clear that if any installment is pending towards the complainant, then the complainant will pay/clear the same.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.: 24.01.2019.

  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.