BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.25/2015.
Date of instt.: 10.2.2015.
Date of Decision: 04.07.2016
Bijinder son of Sh.Harikesh resident of village Chhottrict Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Indusind Bank Limited, Registered office 2401, General Thimmayya Road (Cantonment) Pune-411001, Maharashtra,through its Managing Director/Chairman.
- Indusind Bank Limited, Regional office SCO-53-54, Sector-8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160018, through its Regional Manager.
- Indusind Bank Limited, Regional office 161/4-B, Gulmohar House, 2nd Floor, Yusuf Sarai, Green Part, New Delhi-110016, through its Regional Manager.
- Indusind Bank Limited, Branch office Kaithal, Dhand Road, above Idea Mobile Office, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh.Dinesh Tyagi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER:
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he had taken loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from Op No.1 for purchase of second hand TATA LP-2515 truck, Model-2008, bearing registration No.HR61-7649. It is alleged that all the paper formalities were completed and the documents were executed from Branch Office, Kaithal i.e. Op No.4. It is further alleged that the said truck met with an accident and there was some consequential minor damages in the cabin of truck in May, 2014. It is further alleged that the Ops repossessed the vehicle of the complainant on 18.06.2014. It is further alleged that the complainant demanded some time for re-payment of balance loan amount and requested not to auction the vehicle. It is further alleged that the Ops sold the vehicle of complainant at very meager amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and asked for balance amount of Rs.3,17,000/-. It is further alleged that the vehicle was sold by the Ops without any opportunity or prior notice/intimation to the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was advanced to the complainant vide loan agreement dt. 30.09.2013 and the complainant had to repay a total amount of Rs.9,49,000/- including Rs.1,89,000/- as finance charges/interest in 35 EMIs but the complainant failed to repay the aforesaid EMIs in time. He was irregular in payment. Therefore, he approached the Ops in the month of June, 2014 and showed his incapacity to pay the loan and requested the Ops to take back the custody of vehicle in question vide duly executed affidavit Dt. 17.06.2014. Thereafter, the complainant himself left the vehicle in question in yard of the Ops bank at Ambala on 18.06.2014. Thereafter, the Ops-bank issued a notice dt. 23.06.2014 posted on 28.06.2014 from its New Delhi Branch to the complainant before selling the vehicle in question and called objections from him within seven days but the complainant failed to raise the same. The Ops-bank got done the valuation of vehicle in question from approved valuer namely Sh. Roop Chand, who assessed the value as Rs.3,25,000/-. After getting the valuation report, the Ops-bank put the vehicle in auction and sold the same to the higher bidder for sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with the consent of complainant; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the complainant got financed his commercial vehicle from Delhi Branch and loan agreement was also executed at Delhi. Moreover, the Op Indusind Bank has no branch at Kaithal, hence, no cause of action has been arisen at Kaithal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-C1 to Mark-C18 and closed evidence on 21.03.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark R1 to R13 and closed evidence on 21.03.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant had taken a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the Ops for purchasing of second hand TATA LP-2515 truck Model-2008 bearing registration No.HR61-7649. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of paper formality of loan, OP No.1 got signed five blank cheques from the complainant, as a security of the loan amount. He further argued that in May-2014 the said truck met with an accident and due to this accident, there was some minor damages in the cabin of the trucks. He further argued that on 18.6.2014 the OP No.1 has repossessed the vehicle of the complainant. He further argued that the complainant demanded some times for the payment of balance loan amount and requested the Ops not to auction the vehicle. But Ops had sold the vehicle at a very meager amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and asked for the balance amount of Rs.3,17,000/-. He further argued that few months before the alleged sale of the vehicle, the value of the vehicle was shown of Rs.7,50,000/- in the insurance cover taken by the complainant. He further argued that the Ops have misused one of the cheque out of the above said five cheques by filling the same with an amount of Rs.3,14,000/-. He further argued that the vehicle cannot be repossessed before the termination of loan agreement. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has produced an authority cited in 2016(2) CLT page 343 titled as L&T Finance Limited & Anr. Versus Rampada Maity (NC). On the other hand learned counsel for Ops argued that the Ops have advanced an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant vide loan agreement Mark R-1 dated 30.9.2013. He further argued that the complainant had to repay total amount of Rs.9,49,000/- in 35 EMIs. He further argued that in the month of June, 2014, the complainant approached the Ops and showed his incapacity to pay the loan amount and requested the Ops to take back the custody of the vehicle in question alongwith duly executed affidavit dated 17.6.2014 Mark R-2 and thereafter the complainant himself left the vehicle in question in the yard of the Ops bank at Ambala on 18.6.2014. He further argued that the Ops have issued a notice dated 23.6.2014 sent through registered post on 28.6.2014 to the complainant before selling the vehicle in question and called objections from him within seven days, from the receipt of above said notice. The complainant failed to raise any objections. He further argued that the Ops had got done the valuation of the vehicle from the approved valuer Roop Chand, who assessed the value of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- vide report Mark- R4. He further argued that after getting the valuation report, the vehicle was put in auction and was sold to the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. He further argued that the Ops have issued a demand notice dated 5.9.2014, Mark R-9 regarding demand of Rs.4,47,752/- as balance amount from the complainant. After receiving the aforesaid notice, the complainant approached the OPs at Ambala branch and after due negotiation the complainant agreed to pay Rs.3,14,000/- as full and final settlement towards his outstanding loan amount and issued a cheque dated 02.12.2014 for the said amount. He further argued that the said cheque was dishonoured and the Ops filed complaint under section 138 of N.I.Act, after giving proper notice to the complainant. He further argued that the present complaint is counter blast of the aforesaid complaint filed by the Ops. He further argued that the vehicle was financed by the Ops for the commercial purpose. Therefore, the complainant is not the consumer in the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the Ops relied upon the authorities titled as Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co.Ltd., cited in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; M/s Indusind Bank ltd versus Avtar Singh, cited in Revision Petition No.3266 of 2012, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi; Ram Deshlahara vrsus Magma Leasing Limited, cited in III(2006) CPJ page 247, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and Bhim Singh versus Seeraj Leasing & Finance Private Limited, cited in II(2010) CPJ page No.592, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (H.P).
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that complainant has got financed the second hand TATA LP-2515 truck bearing registration No.HR-61-7649 from the Ops in Septemeber-2013. It is also clear that the truck met with an accident in May, 2014. It is also clear that the complainant could not pay the EMIS in time. The dispute between the parties is that according to complainant the vehicle in question was re-possessed by the Ops on 18.6.2014, whereas according to Ops the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle and secondly that according to complainant, the vehicle was sold at a very meager amount. To prove that the vehicle was surrendered by the complainant himself, the Ops have placed on the file an affidavit of the complainant dated 17.6.2014 Mark R-2. This affidavit is on stamp paper of Rs.10/- issued on 17.6.2014. Para No.2 of this affidavit is as under:-
“The deponent could not adhere the repayment schedule of the loan agreement and unable to deposit the installment on time and unable to run the above said vehicle because this vehicle met with an accident so deponent is not able to get repair this vehicle so deponent surrender the vehicle bearing Engine No.70M62626414 & Chasis No.426031MS2020710 and registration No.HR-61-7649 to Indusind Bank Limited”.
From the contents of this affidavit, it is clear that the complainant has surrendered the vehicle in question himself to the Ops. Therefore, the contention of complainant is that the vehicle in question was re-possessed by the Ops has no force.
7. From the notice dated 23.6.2014, Mark R-3, it is clear that the objections regarding the above said vehicle were sought from the complainant. This notice was sent through registered post to the complainant and his co-borrower Dalbir Singh. The Ops have sold the truck in question after getting the valuation of the same. The Ops have placed the valuation report Mark R-4 according to which the value of the truck was assessed as Rs.3,25,000/-. The truck was in accidental condition. So, the valuation deems to be correct. The Ops have also placed the quotations for the purchase of vehicle Mark R-6 to R-8. Out of these quotations, R-8 have a maximum amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. The Ops have sold the truck in question for the highest value amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-. Moreover, the complainant has admitted in his complaint that he demanded some time for the payment of loan amount which means the complainant could not pay the EMIs in time. The authority produced by the complainant is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Whereas, the authority relied upon by the Ops title as Bhim Singh versus Seeraj Leasing & Finance Private Limited (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. So, in such like circumstances, we found no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.
8. Thus as a sequel of above discussions, we found no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.04.07.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
