Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

405/2007

M.Revathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

IndusInd Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.Muralikrishnan

10 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 21.09.2007

                                                                          Date of Order : 10.01.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

CC. NO.405/2007

WEDNESDAY THE 10^th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

Mrs. M.Revathy,

W/o.  Mariappan,

No.1, Erattai Kuzhi Lane,

Tondiarpet,

Chennai 600 081.                                             .. Complainant.

                                      ..Vs..

 

The Manager (legal),

Indusind Bank Ltd.,

(Ashok Leyland Finance),

No.89, G.N. Chetty Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.                           .. Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. A.Muralikrishna Anandan & others 

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. S.Vasudevan & others. 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of  Rs.1,60,500/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service  and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that she availed of loan of Rs.2,72,000/- from the opposite party for the purchasing a Tourists car namely Tata Indica bearing  registration No.TN-04-T-8058.  As per loan agreement,   the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.3,69,130/- in 48 installments from 21.5.2005 to 21.4.22009.  The complainant contract with M/s. Shalom Travels who have main contract with M/s. Office Tigers, a B.P.O. company for transportation of its employees.    Every month the complainant earning an average amount of Rs.35,000/-.    On 13.9.2006 while the car was travelling on GST Road from Anna Nagar to Tambaram with two employees of M/s. Office Tiger driving by one Mr.Vadivelu  at about 11.p.m.  near Chromepet Vaishanava College Railway Gate four persons came in motorcycle, intercepted and stopped the car and pulled the driver of the car and beaten him, they also pulled out the passengers in the car and seized the car.   Immediately the complainant lodged a complaint with S-13 Chromepet Police station in Crime No.1070/2006.    The opposite party demanded  a sum of Rs.28,500/- for leasing the vehicle.   The complainant paid the said amount on 20.9.2006.     The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.1445/-.  Thereafter the opposite party released the vehicle only on  9.10.2006.   As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. 

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party submit that the complainant availed loan of Rs.2,72,000/- after due execution of loan agreement and submission of guarantors and surety.     The complainant paid only 22 installments.  The complainant is  a chronic defaulter in paying EMI and paid only 22 installments.   The opposite party also state that  the statement of account shows the complainant is a defaulter in payment of loan amount.   On 13.9.2006 at the time of repossession of the vehicle by the bank officials that said guarantor Mr. Vadivelan who drove the vehicle handed over the vehicle to the bank officials.  The complainant had committed default in payment so the opposite party approached  High Court of Madras and filed an application  under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to repossess the vehicle.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.3  marked on the side of the  opposite party.

 

4.      The points for consideration is :

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,60,500/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with cost as prayed for?

5.   ON POINT  :-

          Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Heard the opposite party counsel also.  Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   Both parties admitted that the complainant availed a of loan of Rs.2,72,000/- from the opposite party for purchasing a Tourists car namely Tata Indica bearing  registration No.TN-04-T-8058  as per loan agreement Ex.B1.  The complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.3,69,130/- in 48 installments commencing from 21.5.2005 to 21.4.22009.  The complainant’s  contract with M/s. Shalom Travels who have main contract with M/s. Office Tigers, a B.P.O. company for transportation of its employees.    Every month the complainant earning an average amount of Rs.35,000/-  as per Ex.A8 to Ex.A10.    On 13.9.2006 while the car was plying on GST Road from Anna Nagar to Tambaram with two employees of M/s. Office Tiger driven by one Mr.Vadivelan,  at about 11.00 P.M.  at a place near Chromepet Vaishanava College Railway Gate four persons came in motorcycle, intercepted and stopped the car  and pulled the driver of the car out and beaten the driver, they also pulled out the passengers in the car and seized the car.   Immediately the complainant lodged a complaint with S-13 Chromepet Police station in Crime No.1070/2006 as per Ex.A1. The opposite party demanded  a sum of Rs.28,500/- for releasing the vehicle.   The complainant paid the said amount on 20.9.2006 as per Ex.A3.   The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.1445/- as per Ex.A4.  Thereafter the opposite party released the vehicle only on  9.10.2006  made the complaint to run pillar to post.    Further the complainant contended that  the opposite party is claiming a sum of Rs.43,000/- towards expense for seizer of vehicle as per Ex.A5,  without any account.  The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that  the act of seizer and repossession of the vehicle belongs to the complainant by the opposite party is totally illegal and is against law without notice.  As per Ex.B1 agreement    clause 15.1. read as follows:

“The occurrence of any/all of the aforesaid Events of Default shall entitle the Lender to intimate the Borrower that the entire sum of money and all other sums and charges of whatsoever nature, including but no limited to, interests on account of default in payment of insurance premia and on account of other taxes which would have been payable by the Borrower if the agreement had run to its full term, have become due any payable forthwith.  The Lender shall be entitled to charge an extra percentage at a rate specified in the first schedule on the principal outstanding and on the other amounts due and demand that all the aforesaid amounts be repaid to the Lender immediately.   The lender may be a notice in writing at its discretion can upon the Borrower to rectify the event of default within the period specified in such notice. “

Due to the illegal seizer, the complainant was put to great hard ship and mental agony.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,60,500/-  toward loss of earning and compensation for mental agony. 

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,72,000/- after due execution of loan agreement and submission of guarantors and surety.  Ex.B1 is the loan agreement.    The complainant paid only 22 installments.  The complainant is  a chronic defaulter in paying EMI and paid only 22 installments.   Ex.B3 is the statement of account.  Since the complainant is defaulter in payment of loan amount the complainant’s guarantor Mr. Vadivelan repossessed the vehicle to the opposite party on  30.9.2006.  But on a careful perusal of the records it is seen that the opposite party’s men seized the vehicle, while the vehicle was plying on GST Road at a place near Chromepet Vaishanava College and due FIR Ex.A1 was registered. The accused person in the case admitted the crime pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount also as per Ex.A11 establishes that the  contention regarding the repossessed by the Guarantor Mr. Vadivelan is far away from truth. Further the contention of the opposite party is that after repossession the complainant paid a sum of Rs.28,500/- and the vehicle was redelivered to him.  The opposite party approached the Hon’ble High court of Madras and filed arbitration petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation petition under section 9 to appoint the Advocate Commissioner to repossess the vehicle as per Ex.B2.    The Hon’ble High court of Madras  passed order on 7.1.2007 to repossess the vehicle; but the vehicle is not traceable.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of loan amount not entitled to any relief in this forum.  But on a careful perusal of the entire records it is apparently seen that the opposite party without issuing any notice as per the agreement Ex.B1 dispossessed the vehicle and after  payment of the amount  delivered the vehicle only on 9.10.2006.  There was delay of 18 days in redelivery of  the vehicle after payment.  It is also seen from the records that the vehicle was plying to transport the employees of M/s. Tiger office.  Hence there is a loss of earning for 18 days is also proved.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the  opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards loss of earning due to delay in delivery of the vehicle and shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  and the point is answered accordingly.     

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite party shall  pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand only) towards loss of earning due to delay in delivery of the vehicle and shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of January 2018. 

MEMBER –I                                                                        PRESIDNET.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 3.10.2006  - Copy of FIR.

Ex.A2- 3.10.2006  - Copy of receipt for Rs.28,500/-.

Ex.A3- 3.10.2006  - Copy of receipt for Rs.1445/-

Ex.A4- 27.2.2007  - Copy of statement of account.

Ex.A5- 19.3.2007  - Copy of letter sent by complainant.

Ex.A6- 23.4.2007  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A7- 26.4.2007  - Copy of reply

Ex.A8- 12.12.2008         - Judgment in STC No.1952/2006.

Ex.A9-  Jun’06      - Copy of statement of account.

Ex.A10-July’06      - Copy of statement of account

Ex.A11- Aug’06     - Copy of Statement of account.

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1- 19.4.2005 – Copy of loan agreement.

Ex.B2- 7.9.2007  - Copy of order in No.610/2007

Ex.B3-             - Copy of statement of accounts

 

MEMBER –I                                                                        PRESIDNET.