Haryana

Karnal

CC/314/2018

Gurdeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Chand Bir Mandhan

05 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 314 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.14.11.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 05.11.2019

 

Gurdeep age 28 years son of Shri Krishan Kumar resident of village Jaisingh Pura, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Indusind bank Ltd. Sector-12 Urban Estate, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh…….President.

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member  

 

 Present:  Shri Chandbir Mandhan Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Vineet Rathore Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and complainant has purchased a tractor bearing no.HR40G-1747 make Escorts FT-60 Classic 50 HP for agriculture purpose. The said tractor got hypothecated from the OP on 20.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and at that time of sanctioning the loan account the official of the bank told the complainant to deposit the installment after harvesting the crop i.e. after every six month. At the time of sanctioning the loan the OP has not issued the copy of repayment schedule of the loan amount. After purchasing the aforesaid tractor the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 1.1.2018, Rs.30,000/- on 7.2.2018 and on 22.2.2018 Rs.7000/- thus the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.82,000/-. On 1.11.2018 the official of the OP came at the house of the complainant and snatched the aforesaid tractor by saying that the Hon’ble Court of Shri Chandra Shekhar, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi has passed the order to take the custody of the tractor. On this complainant told them that they are paying the loan installments and they have already paid a sum of Rs.82,000/- to OP and further made request to the officials of the OP that the complainant is ready to pay installments but officials of the OP adamant for taking the custody of the tractor and the officials snatched the aforesaid tractor from the complainant illegally and forcibly.  The act of the OP is a clear violation of the order dated 9.10.2018 passed by of Shri Chandra Shekhar, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in which in para no.12 and 13 of the order is to handover the tractor back to the complainant if he is ready to pay the installments.  After snatching of the tractor the complainant approached the OP alongwith installments and requested to accept the same and to release the tractor but the officials of the OP are adamant to recover the full and final loan amount.  Complainant is an agriculturist and he is unable to pay the full and final payment whereas he is ready to deposit the installments which are outstanding against him till the date when the officials of the OP has taken the possession of the tractor from complainant but OP refused to accede the genuine request of complainant. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, complainant suffered mental tension, harassment as well as financial loss.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant had availed a loan facility under Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 20.10.2017, the OP had financed Rs.5,59,221/- to the complainant to purchase a vehicle, on the assurance of the that to repay the said loan amount in 60 equated monthly installments. The complainant purchased vehicle make ESCORTS FT-60 CLASSIC 50HP having registration no.HR-40G-1747 from aforesaid financed amount but did not pay installments despite repeated demands of the OP. The complainant did not adhere to the repayment schedule of the agreement and committed default in payment of installments. He failed and neglected to pay the installments on the due dates. That there were huge outstanding against the complainant and hence officials at the Branch had followed up with the complainant asking him to pay the dues and regularize the loan account and in this regard a legal notice was also issued by the bank authorities to the complainant and the Guarantor, but the complainant paid no heed to the requests and did not make any effort to pay the outstanding amount. The complainant breached the aforesaid agreement, therefore, OP terminated it by serving notice upon the complainant and initiated the process to refer the dispute to Arbitrator as per Arbitration Clause of the aforesaid agreement. The complainant took loan, purchased the aforesaid vehicle and took delivery of the same, but did not pay aforesaid consecutive equated monthly installments to the OP, clearly reflects that the complainant has breached the aforesaid agreement, infringed the rights of the OP and has caused wrongful loss to the OP, therefore, it is apparent that by filing the present complaint against the OP, complainant is trying to mislead this Forum by stating mis-statement of facts. The complainant was having custody of the tractor and enjoying it, without paying the monthly installments. As such he was frustrating the conditions of agreement containing Arbitration clause, as such seeing no alternative and as per legal process OP moved an application  under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Receiver and repossession of the subject vehicle, which in turn was allowed by the court Shri of Shri Chandra Shekhar, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in Arbitration No.5681/18 titled as Indusind Bank Ltd. Versus Gurdeep, which was allowed by dint of order dated 09.10.2018 and court receiver took lawful possession of vehicle in question. Now the complainant herein has approached the court of Learned ADJ, Delhi and has moved an application under section 151 CPC, which is pending before the court. In view of said circumstances and facts this Forum is not empowered to entertain, try and decide the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 26.04.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Amit Kumar Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 26.09.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is registered owner of tractor bearing no.HR40G-1747. The said tractor got hypothecated from the OP on 20.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and at that time of sanctioning the loan account the official of the bank told the complainant to deposit the installment after harvesting the crop i.e. after every six month. At the time of sanctioning the loan the OP has not issued the copy of repayment schedule of the loan amount. After purchasing the aforesaid tractor the complainant has deposited Rs.82,000/- on various dates. On 1.11.2018 the official of the OP came at the house of the complainant and snatched the aforesaid tractor by saying that the Hon’ble Court of Shri Chandra Shekhar, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi has passed the order to take the custody of the tractor. On this complainant told them that they are paying the loan installments and they have already paid a sum of Rs.82,000/- to OP and further made request to the officials of the OP that the complainant is ready to pay installments but officials of the OP adamant for taking the custody of the tractor and the officials snatched the aforesaid tractor from the complainant illegally and forcibly. The complainant approached the OP and requested that he is ready to pay the installment but the officials of the OP are adamant to recover the full and final loan amount.  Complainant is an agriculturist and he is unable to pay the full and final payment whereas he is ready to deposit the installments which are outstanding against him till the date when the officials of the OP has taken the possession of the tractor from complainant but OP refused to accede the genuine request of complainant.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that complainant had availed a loan facility under Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 20.10.2017, the OP had financed Rs.5,59,221/- to the complainant to purchase a vehicle, on the assurance of the that to repay the said loan amount in 60 equated monthly installments. The complainant purchased vehicle make ESCORTS FT-60 CLASSIC 50HP having registration no.HR-40G-1747 from aforesaid financed amount but did not pay installments despite repeated demands of the OP. The complainant did not adhere to the repayment schedule of the agreement and committed default in payment of installments. He failed and neglected to pay the installments on the due dates. As a result of that there was huge outstanding amount against the complainant and hence officials at the Branch had followed up with the complainant asking him to pay the dues and regularize the loan account and in this regard a legal notice was also issued by the bank authorities to the complainant and the Guarantor, but the complainant paid no heed to the requests and did not make any effort to pay the outstanding amount. The complainant breached the aforesaid agreement, therefore, OP terminated it by serving notice upon the complainant and initiated the process to refer the dispute to Arbitrator as per Arbitration Clause of the aforesaid agreement. The complainant took loan, purchased the aforesaid vehicle and took delivery of the same, but did not pay aforesaid consecutive equated monthly installments to the OP, clearly reflects that the complainant has breached the aforesaid agreement, infringed the rights of the OP and has caused wrongful loss to the OP, therefore, it is apparent that by filing the present complaint against the OP, complainant is trying to mislead this Forum by stating mis-statement of facts. The complainant was having custody of the tractor and enjoying it, without paying the monthly installments. As such he was frustrating the conditions of agreement containing Arbitration clause, as such seeing no alternative and as per legal process OP moved an application  under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Receiver and repossession of the subject vehicle, which in turn was allowed by the court Shri of Shri Chandra Shekhar, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in Arbitration No.5681/18 titled as Indusind Bank Ltd. Versus Gurdeep, which was allowed by dint of order dated 09.10.2018 and court receiver took lawful possession of vehicle in question.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant had got financed his tractor from the OP on 20.10.2017 for the sum of Rs.5,59,221/-. The loan amount has to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments. The complainant did not pay the installments as per schedule as loan agreement Ex.OP. As per OP, complainant has paid one EMI.

9.             Learned counsel of the OP submits that matter has already been settled by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in Arbitration No.5681/18 titled as Indusind Bank Ltd. Versus Gurdeep, vide order dated 20.12.2018 Ex.OP3. The vehicle in question has taken into custody by Court Receiver, Rajesh Kumar. During the course of arguments he placed the report of receiver. As per said report the tractor of the complainant has been taken into custody by the court receiver.

10.            As per submission made by the learned counsel of the OP and record available on the file, it has been proved that OP moved an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Receiver and repossession of the subject vehicle, which was allowed by the court Shri of Shri Chandra Shekhar, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in Arbitration No.5681/18 titled as Indusind Bank Ltd. Versus Gurdeep, vide order dated 9.10.2018 and court receiver took the possession of vehicle in question. In view of the above discussion, facts of the case, we are of the view that there is no force in the complaint of the complainant as the matter has already decided by the Arbitrator.

11.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 05.11.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member