Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/109/2011

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

None for complainant.

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 109 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 09.02.2011      

                                                                                          Date of decision: 08.02.2017

 

Vijay Kumar aged about 38 years, son of Shri Anant Ram, resident of House No.350, Shiv Puri Colony, Kansapur, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

               …Complainant.

                                         Versus

1. Indusind Bank Ltd. New No.34, Old Nos. 115 and 116, GN Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017, through its Manager Executive-Legal.
2. Indusind Bank Ltd. Upstairs Ganpati Enterprises, near telephone exchange Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.
3. Mr. Gautam sales Executive, Indusind Bank Ltd. Upstair Ganpati Enterprises, near Telephone Exchange, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar.
4. Mr. Nitin, Employee of Indusind Bank Ltd. Upstairs Ganpati Enterprises, near Telephone Exchange, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                        ...Respondents

 

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

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

 

Present:           None for complainant.

                         Shri G.S. Reen, Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

 

1                         The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant has purchased a motor cycle Hero Honda Splendor plus Model: 2007 and the complainant has got the said vehicle hypothecated from the respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as OPs No.1 and 2) for a sum of Rs.28,700/- on 11.11.2007 and rest amount was paid by the complainant in cash to the Dealer. The amount of hypothecation was to be repaid by the complainant to the OPs in 20 installments of Rs.1722/- each. Previously the complainant was fell ill and could not deposit installment in time of February and March 2008 against which the complainant deposited the same on 28.03.2008 and 31.03.2008 with penalty but the OP No.3 and 4 who are the employees of the OP No.1 and 2, started threatening the complainant on telephone as the installment of Month of April 2008 become due, and hence the OP No.3 and 4 forcibly took the possession of the vehicle from the house of the complainant in the month of April 2008 and asked that they are repossessing the vehicle on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 and there will be no due towards the complainant. Thereafter, in the month of June 2008 the complainant again received telephonic message from office of OP No.1 and 2 to the effect that a sum of Rs.6400/- is due against the complainant and threatened  that if the complainant did not deposit the amount, a criminal case against the complainant will be initiated. On 30.06.2008 complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1700/- and then Rs.3000/- on 31.07.2008 and then Rs.1700/- on 30.08.2008, just to avoid the criminal litigation. Even no receipt was issued to the complainant. Thereafter, in the month of April, 2009 the OP No.3 and 4 again came in the house of the complainant and forcibly taken the motor cycle in the month of April, 2008 the value of which was more than Rs.35000/- at that time but thereafter they have illegally received Rs.6400/- from the complainant under threat so the question of further due amount is meaningless. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to refund Rs.6400/- as illegally recovered by the OPs and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant  has got no locus standi; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; Complainant has no cause of action and on merit it is admitted that complainant purchased a motor cycle make Hero Honda Splendor Plus, Model 2007 and got the same financed with the OP No.1 and 2, under hypothecation agreement for a sum of Rs.28,000/- and he has to repay the finance amount along with interest in 20 monthly installments of Rs.1722/- each. The true facts are that the complainant right from the first day is irregular in making the payment of monthly installments and many cheques, issued by the complainant for monthly installments to the OPs, have been dishonoured and a huge amount is still outstanding against him. It is also admitted that complainant deposited the amount of installments on 28.03.2008 and 31.03.2008 along with penalty with the answering OPs. It is worthwhile mention here that the answering OP no.4 Nitin was  not the employee of the Bank, during this period. He left the job of the answering OP on 31.12.2007 and thereafter he joined Fulltron India on 31.12.2007. It is also admitted that complainant deposited Rs.1700/- on 30.06.2008, Rs.3000/- on 31.07.2008 and Rs.1700/- on 30.08.2008 against valid receipts. The complainant has made up a false and concocted story just for his unlawful gains. The true facts are that complainant failed to make payment of the outstanding amount, the answering OPs referred the matter to the arbitrator  as per the terms and conditions of the loan amount and the arbitrator after going through all documents and after giving the opportunity  of hearing to the parties, passed the final award against the complainant on 22.12.2010 and the copy of the same has already been dispatched by the arbitrator to the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     Learned counsel for the Complainant failed to adduced any evidence and the evidence of the complainant was closed by Court order vide order dated 09.08.2016.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tender into evidence affidavit of Shri Kulvinder, Legal Executive-cum- GP Holder Indusind Bank Ltd. Yamuna Nagar as Annexure RA, photocopy of order passed by Shri Sandeep Garg, ADJ Jagadhri and photocopy of order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the arbitrator Chennai as Annexure R-1, photocopy of joint statement as Annexure R-2,  photocopy of order passed by Shri Rajneesh Bansal, ADJ Jagandri vide order dated 31.10.2014 as Annexure R-3, photocopy of order passed by Shri Rajneesh Bansal, ADJ Jagandri which was decided on 20.12.2014 as Annexure R-4 and R-5, photocopy of statement  of account as Annexure R-6, photocopy of GPA General Power of Attorney as Annexure R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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.                     During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Ops draw our attentions towards the certified copies of order passed by the Hon’ble District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in execution petition bearing No. 156/2014 decided on 20.12.2014 Annexure R-1 to R-5 and argued that matter between the parties has already been compromised and wife of the complainant Smt. Neelam Rani have deposited Rs. 9000/- with the Ops Bank. On the other hand, none is appearing on behalf of complainant from the various dates to controvert the pleading of the Ops. Even the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order vide order dated 09.08.2016. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence on behalf of the complainant, 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 free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.08.02.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER