Orissa

Jajapur

CC/31/2018

Santosh Kumar Dhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDUSIND BANK Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Biplab Kumar Tripathy

29 Oct 2020

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:     1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, I/C President,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                      

                                       Dated the 29th day of OCTOBER,2020.

                                                      C.C.Case No.31 of 2018

Santosh ku.Dhal  S/O Late Nidhiram Dhal

Vill.  Saipur,  P.O. Adanga purusottampur

P.S. Jajpur Sadar , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Indusind Bank Ltd, At.Plot No.78, 2^nd floor,Janapath,P.O/P.S/Kharvelanagar

 Umit-3,Bhubaneswar.

2. Branch Manager, Indusind bank, Chandikhole Branch ,Rout complex

Chandikhole chhak,opposite police out post, P.O.Sunguda ,Dt.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                               ………..O.Ps.

For the Complainant:                           Sri B.K.Tripathy,Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                            Sri B.B.Sahoo, Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   29.10.2020.

MISS SMITA  RAY, L A D Y  MEMBER  .

Deficiency in  banking service is the grievance of the petitioner .

            The fact  relevant  as per complaint petition   shortly  is that the petitioner purchased  two wheeler from  the O.Ps. For  sanction and disbursal of financial assistance in his favour . The O.Ps being satisfied  with the financial credibility  sanctioned  a sum of Rs 44,000/-  for purchasing  a HERO HONDA GLAMOUR  bearing Regd. No.OD-04-G-5212.

As per hypothecation agreement the  total price of the vehicle on road  was Rs.62,916/- . The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs 23,470/-  as down payment .  The total  value  including  interest  to be  repaid by  the petitioner was Rs.55,430/- and the said amount of Rs.55,430/- was to be repaid by the petitioner in 23 monthly installments @2410/- each.         

            That after purchasing of vehicle the petitioner though is paying the monthly installments regularly through the agent of the O.P , but the O.P are not providing the details statement of account  to the petitioner inspite of several approach  and the O.P  on 9.2.18 all on a sudden repossessed  the  vehicle through their muscle men while he was going  with  his family  without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner . The petitioner  has already paid Rs.38,782/- out of the total agreement  value of Rs.55, 430/-  After seizure of the vehicle the petitioner  personally approached the O.P.no.2  in his office  and wanted to know the exact loan amount  but the O.P.no. 2 in casual manner did not pay any heed to it .The petitioner also suo-moto  wanted  to deposit Rs 25,000/-  on that day but the O.P  did not accept the money and threatened  to sale the vehicle vide letter dt. 6.3.18 . Accordingly finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this commission  with the prayer  to direct the O.Ps.

1.to provide a copy of loan agreement

2.to provide up to date statement  of account in respect of loan account No. OBC01337H ,

3.to release the vehicle baring  Regd No.OD-04-G-5212

To pay a sum of Rs.31,000/- towards  deficiency of service , cost of litigation and  mental agony.

            After receipt of the notice  the op appeared through their learned advocate and subsequently filed their written version  taking  the stand that ;

The petitioner is not coming under the definition of consumer” as defined U/S 2(1) (d) of the consumer protection Act,1986. It is again false to say that though the petitioner is paying the monthly installments regularly through the agent of the O.Ps, but the O.ps are not providing detail statement of account of the petitioner instead of several approach and on dt.09.02.18 all on a sudden the O.Ps repossessed the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OD-04-G-5212 of the petitioner through their muscle men, while the petitioner was going with his family without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner and the O.Ps had not given any valid cause  without issuing any prior notice  statement of account to the petitioner . It is again false to aver that after seizure of the vehicle the petitioner personally approached the O.ps to know the exact outstanding of loan amount in respect  of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement No.OBC01337H, and  the O.P.no.2 did not accept Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner, when  he  wanted  to deposit the same rather threatened to sale the seized vehicle. The facts of the case of the petitioner, which are not specifically admitted / denied by these O.ps are deemed to be denied herewith.

            The O.P.no.1 is banking company within the meaning of section 2(5) of companies Act,1956 and section 5 @ of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 having its Branch office at plot  No.78, 2^nd floor, Janapath, P.O/P.S/Kharbela Nagar,Unit-111,BBSR. The petitioner vide Loan Agreement No.OBC0133H with the O.ps had obtained one HERO HONDA GLAMOUR CAST DRUM SELF 125CC Motor cycle bearing Regd. No.OD-04-G-5212, Engine No.JA06EJFGE 16066 and chasis No.MBLJA06AMFGE 10843. The said motor cycle has been hypothecated to the O.Ps. The petitioner availed loan and agreed to abide the terms and condition of the agreement, which includes the due payment of Emi’s and outstanding as and when falls due as per schedule. But it is too much unfortunate that the petitioner did not abide by  the terms and conditions of the agreement and did not pay the EMI’s in due time. The O.Ps have made several reminders to the petitioner to make proper payment of EMI’s but the petitioner did not pay any heed to the same. Hence, finding no alternative the O.Ps had given pleader’s notice to the petitioner on dt.11.01.2018 by Regd. Post with AD  with  a request to pay the overdue amount of Rs.28,859/- as per loan agreement No OBC01337H.  The petitioner is not a regular payee to O.Ps due. There is no deficiency of service by the O.ps to the petitioner. The installment period is already over. When the petitioner did not pay the EMI’s as per loan agreement the O.Ps are forced to repossess the aforesaid vehicle after maintaining proper formalities as per law. There is no iota of evidence on record that the petitioner asked for detail statement of accounts to the O.ps ,so also the petitioner suomoto wanted to deposit Rs.25,000/- but the O.ps did not accept the same.

            The petitioner is not entitled to  any relief as prayed in this case. The O.Ps are entitled to litigation expenses as the claims of the petitioner are false and fabricated and baseless. The O>ps have never threatened to sale the vehicle vide letter No.06.03.2018 to the petitioner, rather informed the petitioner as per agreement and law that in order to relies the over due the O.ps are constrained to sale the vehicle in question . For the reason aforesaid and others are to be submitted at the time of hearing of the case. Hence  the C.C.Case is liable to be dismissed with cost.   

            On the date of  hearing  we heard the argument for both the sides.  After perusal of the record and documents in details it is undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the alleged vehicle with the financial assistance of the O.P  .It is also undisputed fact that the petitioner became defaulter for repayment of Emi ,  for which the O.P  seized the vehicle .It is pertinent to mention here that vide interim order dt.14.5.18 this commission directed the O.P  to release the vehicle bearing no.  OD-04-G-5212  in favour of the petitioner  after receiving  a sum of Rs25,000/- . In this contest after perusal of the observation  of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2006-CTJ-209(S.C) ( M.D Orix Auto Vrs. Josbinder Singh) wherein we are inclined  to hold that though the O.P  is empowered as per terms and condition of the agreement to seize and sale the financed vehicle in case of default of  monthly installments of the loan but such seizure and sale must be  as per law in view of the Observation of Hon’ble National Commission  reported in 2016(11) –CLT-31(N.C)  ( A.V Finance India Pvt. Ltd Vrs. Ramdas Raghunath patil) 

And

            “observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2007(36) –OCRCSC( Manager ICICI Bank Ltd. Vrs Prakash Kour and Others) ,2016(1) –CLT-310_N.C ( Kotak Mahindra Ltd Vrs M.D Sarif Ansori) wherein it is held that

            “ vehicle repossessed and sold by the financer without notice is illegal. “

On the other hand the advocate for the  petitioner during the course of hearing alleged that he has already paid Rs.38,782+ 25,000/) .Out of the total agreement value of Rs.55,430/- but the O.Ps  now claiming huge out standing  amount against the alleged vehicle which is illegal .  In this point we are inclined to hold that the O.P is  entitled to charge DPC as per agreement if the petitioner became defaulter  for repaying the EMI on the other hand such charging  of DPC should not be  more than 9% interest  as per observation of Hon’ble  High court vide W.P(c)  No. 17720/2008  constitution   bench of supreme  court reported  in Air 2000(1) -3095-SC

            In view of above observation  from our side we  dispose of the dispute as per order below:-

O R D E R

            The dispute is disposed of  on contest  . The  O.Ps are directed to recalculate the DPC of the above vehicle at the rate of 9% per annum .The revised copy of the statement of account will be  sent to the petitioner by the O.P  through R.P  within one month after receipt of this order. The petitioner is also directed to pay the arrear amount (if any  ) after  receipt of recalculation statement of account  within 15 days after receipt of  revised statement of account  .  No cost.    

                       

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of  October 2020. under my hand and seal of the Commission.