Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

193/2014

subash chandrabose - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indus Ind bank Pvt ltd, rep by its Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

subash chandrabose

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  01.10.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  30.06.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 30^th DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.193/2014

 

 

Mr.D.Subas Chandra Bose,

No.31, 3^rd Street,

Bharathidhasan Nagar,

Mogappair, Chennai – 37.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Manager,

Indus Ind Bank Limited,

AL Complex W-Block,

115-A, 3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar,

Chennai - 40

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 10.10.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : K.Moorthy, S.R.Sundar

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party to receive the amount payable by him and in turn return the auto to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant availed a Auto loan of Rs.1,10,000/- to purchase TN 02 AM 3538 auto.  He also paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- by way of cash to the dealer. After purchase of the vehicle the Complainant regularly repaid EMI’s and totally paid an amount of Rs.94,625/- to the Opposite Party. Thus totally he paid a sum of Rs.1,50,625/- for the vehicle. The Opposite Party on 10.08.2012 at about 5.00 a.m knocked the door of his brother Lenin Prakash and asked him to pay the amount considering both of them resembling together.

          2. On 14.08.2012 the Opposite Party came with goondas and forcibly took the auto with them. On 14.09.2012 they sent a telegram and final letter stating that if he wants the vehicle he can get the same after paying the money or otherwise the same will be sold for a sum of Rs.35,000/- which is higher quote.  The Opposite Party without any reason had took the vehicle and sold the same even though he had given notice on 14.09.2012 giving three days time. Such act of the Opposite Party is deficiency in service and caused mental agony to him. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint praying to direct the Opposite Party to receive the amount payable by the Complainant to him and in turn return the auto to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant approached during the month of June 2010 requesting to finance for the purchase of Ape Goods Carriage vehicle bearing Registration Number TN 02 AM 3538. The Opposite Party had financed a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and a sum of Rs.7,000/- as Insurance charges for second and third year. The interest charge claimed was Rs.44,550/- with other applicable charges has to be repaid by the Complainant in 35 equated monthly installments with Rs.4,765/- for the first 20 monthly installment and Rs.4,415/- for the remaining 15 installments which starts from 01.08.2010 and ends on 01.06.2013 totalling the agreement value to Rs.161,525/- and entered into a Agreement No.TQAA08594.

          4. The Complainant agreed to pay all the EMI’s in regular monthly basis and without delay or default. Complainant agreed to pay Additional Interest Charges in case of delay or default in payment of the installments, from the date of default and till the date of payment of the defaulted amounts.  The terms and conditions of the loan agreement are clearly explained to the Complainant before entering into the Loan Agreement. The Complainant only paid 18 regular payments with additional interest charges stared accruing in loan amount along with the overdue and late payment. The Complainant is liable to pay overdue charges along with additional charges and second year Insurance Premium which was paid by the Opposite Party on behalf of the Complainant.

          5. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- as an initial deposit, but the Opposite Party states that an amount of Rs.31,120/- paid by the Complainant to the vehicle dealer directly towards margin amount, Vehicle Registration cost, Road Tax, Road Permit and other charges, Hence the amount paid to the dealer shall not be considered as a payment made towards the loan amount. The Opposite Party visited the Complainant place at odd hours  to collect pending installments made phone calls to repossess the vehicle by using force is untrue and false.

6. Inspite of repeated demands, remainder calls and personal visits, the Complainant had refused and neglected to pay the outstanding amounts. Hence on 14.08.2012 Opposite Party repossess the vehicle with the help of their executives. The Complainant has come forward in handing over the possession of the vehicle to the Opposite Party without any protest. The Opposite Party had sent two other notice dated 22.08.2012 and 05.09.2012 to the Complainant stating that to take back his vehicle after the payment of outstanding. On 14.09.2012 Opposite Party had sent a Telegram to the Complainant regarding the bidding process and sale quote received for the vehicle. Even after the notices and telegram sent to the Complainant, he never bothered to pay the outstanding amount and to take back the vehicle. Hence the Opposite Party had no other option and enforced its right under the loan agreement and sold the vehicle for Rs.75,000/- which was the highest bid price quoted for the vehicle. The sale proceeds were also adjusted towards the loan outstanding payable as on 14.09.2012 and the loan account closed by the Opposite Party. Hence the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.    

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

 

8. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant borrowed an auto loan for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to purchase an auto bearing No.TN 02 AM 3538  and at that time he had also deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the dealer of the vehicle evidenced under Ex.B3 and the dealer issued Ex.B2 quotation for the vehicle for a sum of Rs.1,71,720/- and the dealer sent Ex.B4 letter to the Opposite Party about the allotment of the vehicle to the Complainant including vehicle engine and chassis number and the Complainant entered Ex.B6  loan agreement, Ex.B9 demand promissory note and Ex.B28  is the RC Book of the Complainant vehicle which has the endorsement of the hypothecated to the Opposite Party/bank and Ex.B7 repayment schedule for 35 months  and out of which the Complainant agreed to pay the first installment at Rs.4,790/- and from the second installment to 20^th installment at the rate of Rs.4,765/- per month  and from 21^st installment 35^th installment at the rate of Rs.4,415/- per month and to avail the loan, the Complainant gave Ex.B8 application and the Opposite Party re-possessed the vehicle on 14.08.2012.  

          9. The Complainant contended that he had paid a sum of Rs.94,625/- by way of EMI’s under Ex.A1 receipts and on 14.08.2012 the Opposite Party had forcibly took the vehicle from him and he totally paid a sum of Rs.1,50,625/- inclusive of a deposit of Rs.60,000/- to the dealer and though he had given three times  for payment amount and to get back the vehicle under Ex.A2  & Ex.B4 dated 14.09.2012, before that period  itself  he had sold the vehicle and therefore the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service.

          10. The Opposite Party would contend that only with the consent of the Complainant they took the vehicle for the default of payment committed by him and though in Ex.A2 it was stated that the highest quote of Rs.35,000/-, actually the Opposite Party sold the vehicle for Rs.75,000/- and that amount was appropriated to the loan account of the Complainant and the same was closed by him and the said statement of account marked as Ex.B17 and hence the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          11. The specific contention of the Complainant is that  the Opposite Party had forcibly took the vehicle from him and on the other hand the Opposite Party would reply that it is the Complainant  who handed over the vehicle to them as he committed default in payment. Ex.B6 is the loan agreement contains several clauses of conditions. Clause 15.0 deals lender’s rights, in which clause 15.2 empowers the lender viz., the Opposite Party in the event of default entitled to repossess the vehicle if necessary to break open any such place. Further in clause 15.4 it has been stated that the borrower shall not be entitled to raise any objection regarding the regularity of the sale/action through any broker, auctioneer or other person or body engaged by the lender. As per the above clauses the Opposite Party has right to repossess the vehicle in case of default in-payment committed by the Complainant. Admittedly as per Ex.A1 the Complainant paid only 16 installments that too, the first five months payment was made in time and thereafter irregular payments were made. Therefore, the Opposite Party  re-possessed the vehicle forcibly from the Complainant  has no substance.

          12.  The agreement value for re-payment by the Complainant is at Rs.1,61,525/- inclusive of interest. Admittedly as per Ex.A1 the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.94,625/-  including interest till 23.07.2012 with irregular period and he has to pay the  balance amount out of the agreement value of Rs.1,61,525/-. After 23.07.2012 he did not make any payment. Therefore, the Complainant defaulted in making payments by way of EMI’s as per Ex.B7 repayment schedule for the loan amount borrowed from the Opposite Party.  Though the Opposite Party stated in Ex.A2 the highest quote price of Rs.35,000/- for the vehicle, finally the Opposite Party sold for a higher price of Rs.75,000/- and appropriated the sale price to the Complainant loan account and closed the same as per  Ex.B17.  The Complainant never contended that the statement of Account Ex.B17 filed by the Opposite Party is wrong. As such, the Opposite Party closed the loan account of the Complainant and the Complainant is not due to pay any amount to the loan borrowed from the Opposite Party.  Therefore, in this respect due to default committed by the Complainant and the Opposite Party sold the vehicle and appropriated the amount in the loan account of the Complainant, the Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.  

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30^th day of June 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 30.09.2010                            Receipt issued by the bank for the payments

  To 23.07.2012                                       made by the complainant on various dates

 

Ex.A2 dated 14.09.2012                            Telegram issued by the opposite party to the

                                                               complainant

 

Ex.A3 dated 05.09.2012                            Final Remainder issued by the opposite

                                                              Party

 

Ex.A4 dated 17.09.2012                            Letter addressed to the opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 18.09.2012                             Acknowledgement of the opposite party

Ex.A6 dated 17.09.2012                            Copy of telegram sent by the complainant to                                                   

                                                              the opposite party

 

Ex.A7 dated 18.09.2012                            Receipt sent for telegram (N0.80256)

Ex.A8 dated 06.08.2013                            Complainant sent letter to the Commissioner

                                                               of Police

 

Ex.A9 dated 08.08.2013                            Bank Redressal Forum

Ex.A10 dated 16.08.2013                          Acknowledgement card

Ex.A11 dated 23.10.2013                          Ombudsman letter  to the complainant

Ex.A12 dated 03.10.2013                          Opposite party Letter to the complainant

Ex.A13 dated 08.08.2013                          Legal Notice issued to the opposite party on

                                                               behalf of the complainant

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 17.05.2010                             Irrevocable Power of Attorney

 

Ex.B2 dated 15.06.2010                             Dealer Quotation

 

Ex.B3 dated 15.06.2010                             Advance payment receipt by dealer

 

Ex.B4 dated 15.06.2010                             Confirmation letter from dealer to Opposite

                                                               Party

 

Ex.B5 dated 18.06.2010                             Sale Memo

 

Ex.B6 dated 22.06.2010                             Loan Agreement

 

Ex.B7 dated 22.06.2010                             Repayment Schedule

 

Ex.B8 dated NIL                               Loan Application Form

 

Ex.B9  dated 22.06.2010                            Demand Promissory Note

Ex.B10 dated 22.06.2010                              Cheque issued to Dealer by Opposite Party

 

Ex.B11 dated 02.07.2010                           Dealer’s Invoice

 

Ex.B12 dated 02.07.2010                           Hypothecated Vehicle R.C.Book

 

Ex.B13 dated 05.09.2012                           Loan Repayment Remainder

 

Ex.B14 dated 14.09.2012                           Vehicle Auction Remainder

 

Ex.B15 dated 03.10.2013                           Reply to Complainant’s Complaint to

                                                              Banking Ombudsman

 

Ex.B16 dated 23.10.2013                           Reply to Complainant from Banking

                                                              Ombudsman

 

Ex.B17 dated 05.07.2015                           Statement of Account

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT