Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1136/2012

Khem Chand s/o Ved Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Godiyan

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 1136 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 19.10.2012  

                                                                                          Date of decision: 15.06.2017

 

Khem Chand aged about 35 years son of Shri Ved Parkash resident of House No. 1233-B, Mukherji Park, Near Shani Mandir, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Indusind Bank Ltd. having its office at No. 116, G.N. Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai through its Managing Director.
2. Indusind Bank Ltd. having its Local Office at Upstairs, Ganpati Enterprises, Near Harsh Motors, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Legal Executive & GPA Sh. Anuj Deepak Sharma s/o Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma.
3. Rahul Tyagi son of Shri Sunil Kumar, resident of Govindpuri, Near Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar.
4. Deepak Kumar son of Shri Devender Nath Sharma, resident of village Kharwan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                               ...Respondents

                         BEFORE:    SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                    SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND………. MEMBER

 

Present:     Sh. Amar Nath Passi, with Sh. Vijay Singh Godian, Adv. for complainant

                                             Sh. G.S. Reen, Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2.

                                             Respondent No.3 already ex-parte.

                                             Respondent No.4 already given up.

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date against the respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant has purchased a motor cycle make Bajaj Discover 125 from Malik Automobiles, Bilaspur for an amount of Rs. 43,990/- and out of abovesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 15,400/- was paid in cash to the agency by the complainant and remaining amount of Rs. 28,590/- was financed by OPs No.1 & 2 and OP No.3 & 4 were employees of the Ops No.1 & 2. At the time of purchase of abovesaid motorcycle, the OPs No.1 & 2 had also taken the cheque book and other blank singed papers from the complainant and further got signatures of the complainant on several blank as well as filled papers without disclosing the contents thereof to the complainant with the assertion that the same are to be required for disbursing the finance amount in favour of the complainant. In the month of January, 2008, the employees of OPs No.1 & 2 i.e. OPs No.3 & 4 alongwith some musclemen came at the house of the complainant without giving any prior notice to the complainant and tried to take the forcible possession of the motorcycle in question from him without disclosing any fact to the complainant. Finding no other alternative, the complainant called the respectable of the locality to solve the dispute between the parties and in the presence of respectable persons, it was settled between the officials of the OPs as well as complainant that the Ops will not take any more amount from the complainant except taking the motorcycle in question from his possession towards the finance amount.  In the last week of September, 2012, the employee of Op No.2 came at the house of the complainant and threatened that complainant would be behind the bars within a short period for non payment of loan amount because they have got passed an ex-parte arbitral award dated 05.02.2010 in their favour and execution of the same has also been filed, upon which the complainant contacted his counsel and came to know about the illegal, null and void ex-parte award dated 05.02.2010 and finding no other alternative and under threatening of arrest, the complainant under protest deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the court.  Lastly, prayed for directing the Ops to pay back a sum of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed its written statement jointly whereas OP No.3 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.01.2016  and OP No.4 was given up vide order dated 02.09.2016. OPs No.1 & 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; an arbitration award was passed and in pursuance of that award, the complainant compromised the matter with the bank and deposited the amount to satisfy the award and after receiving the payment, the said execution of the award was withdrawn by the bank. So, now the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint and on merit it has been submitted that their does not exist any relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties as the finance/loan case of the complainant has finally been settled and now there is no case or relation is pending with the complainant, so the complainant can not treat himself as a consumer of OPs No.1 & 2. It has been further submitted that the OPs No.1 & 2 filed an execution in pursuance of the arbitration award which was pending in the court of Sh. Phalit Sharma, ADJ, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and the complainant in that execution compromised the dispute and deposited Rs. 30,000/- with the bank against valid receipt and the bank on 29.09.2012 has withdrawn the execution being fully satisfied. It has been denied that the complainant ever deposited the amount of Rs. 30,000/- with the bank under protest. Rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

4.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CA and documents such as Photo copy of proposal statement dated 28.09.2012 as Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Kulvinder Singh, Legal Executive-cum- GP Holder Indusind Bank Ltd. Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R1/A, and documents Annexure R-1 to R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the official of the Ops Bank with the help of muscleman firstly tried to take the possession of the motorcycle in question, however later on it was settled between the officials of the OPs as well as complainant that OPs will not take any more amount from the complainant except taking the motorcycle in question from his possession towards the finance amount. Accordingly, the motorcycle was taken into custody by the official of the OPs Bank and the same was sold in the market and after selling the motorcycle in question excess amount of Rs. 1500/- was repaid to the complainant by the official of the OPs Bank but however, in the month of September, 2012 the official of the OP No.2 threatened that the complainant would be behind the bar within as short period for non payment of loan amount under the execution of Arbitrator Award dated 05.02.2010 which is pending in the Hon’ble Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar. Upon which, complainant contacted his counsel and to avoid further litigation deposited Rs. 30,000/- in the Bank. The amount of Rs. 30,000/- has been wrongly and illegally charged by the Ops from the complainant and the same is liable to be refunded to the complainant, however, the official of the Ops refused to refund the same which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that all the facts mentioned in the complaint are concocted and manipulated one whereas the complainant failed to deposit a single penny with the Ops against the installments and cheques given by the complainant were dishonoured one by one and despite so many requests complainant failed to make the payment. Upon which, an Arbitration Award was passed on dated 05.02.2010 against the complainant and the complainant in compliance of award passed by the arbitrator on 05.10.2010 and further to satisfy the execution of the award which was pending before the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar had voluntarily deposited the due amount. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the certified copies of award Annexure R-1 and order of Hon’ble Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar dated 29.09.2012 as Annexure R1/3 and argued that award amount was Rs.. 22,345/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum and after calculating the interest etc. amount due was become more than Rs. 30,000/-, however, the complainant deposited Rs. 30,000/- as full and final with the bank on 29.09.2012 (Statement of account Annexure R-1/5. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as from the perusal of the account statement, it is clear that complainant had failed to deposit the installments amount as per schedule and arbitration award was passed against him on 05.02.2010 and in compliance of award and further under the execution which was pending before the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, complainant had voluntarily deposited the amount of Rs. 30,000/- with the OPs Bank after that OPs Bank had withdrawn the execution petition being fully satisfied. The present complaint has been filed on 19.10.2012 after compromising in the execution on 29.09.2012 for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 30,000/- which was deposited under that execution by the complainant which is not maintainable as if there was any grievances then the complainant was having right to file the objection as well as appeal/revision before the Higher Authority against that award passed on 05.02.2010 but the complainant failed to do so.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered

 view that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.15.06.2017

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                      (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)              (S.C.SHARMA)

                           MEMBER                                            MEMBER