: J U D G M E N T :
The petitioner, Abhishek Baishnab has filed the instant case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party, Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, Krishnagar Branch.
Case of the petitioner in brief:-
The petitioner purchased a Hero Honda CBZ, Xtreme, single disc 150 CC two wheeler whose cost price was Rs. 85000/-. Petitioner paid Rs. 35,000/- as down payment and the OP bank paid the balance amount to the petitioner as loan which was agreed to be repayable along with interest charges of Rs. 16500/- in 30 equated monthly instalment (EMI) @ Rs. 2216/- per month. (The 1st EMI was scheduled to start on 21.06.12 and to end on 21.11.14. It was also agreed that the due date for payment of EMI from the 2nd month to 29th month would be the 21st day of English Calender Month). The petitioner paid the EMIs to the OP bank regularly. He paid Rs. 2670/- on 01.07.12, Rs. 2660/- on 27.11.12 Rs. 2666/- on 15.12.12 Rs.5,335/- on 10.05.13 Rs. 2670/- on 05.01.13 and Rs. 2640/- on 28.02.13 and the OP has issued receipts for all the payments. Petitioner also paid Rs. 2235/- on 02.07.12, Rs. 2,216/- on 21.09.12 and Rs. 2216/- on 22.01.13 through cheque. OP received Rs. 5335 on 18.05.13 as last instalment. But suddenly on 20.05.13 OP seized the vehicle from the custody of the petitioner’s elder brother forcibly and surprising enough OP did not mention any reason for such repossession in the inventory list. Petitioner sent a letter on 27.05.13 to the OP to know the reason for such repossession and finally sent a lawyer’s notice on 02.08.13. But the OP did not meet the queries of the petitioner. Petitioner also personally went to the OP’s office to bring back the two wheeler, but OP refused to attend the petitioner. Finally the petitioner has come to the Forum and instituted the present case with a prayer to get the following relief.
- Direction upon the OP either to return the motor cycle or to pay the amount by petitioner for buying the vehicle.
- Direction upon the OP to pay Rs. 30000/- towards compensation along with litigation cost.
The OP contested the case by filing written version. OP denied all the allegations and submits that there is no cause of action for filing the present case. The OP admitted the fact of taking loan of Rs. 50000/- and also admitted that the EMI for such loan was Rs. 2216/- per month. OP submits that the petitioner’s banker dishonoured the EMI cheque dtd. 21.07.12, 21.08.12, 21.09.12, 21.10.12, 21.11.12, 21.12.12, 21.02.13, 21.03.13 & 21.04.12 for want of sufficient fund but admits that after several follow-ups a few instalments were received through cash. The OP came to know that the petitioner handed over the vehicle to Mr. Kunal baishnab who happens to be his elder brother. OP took the possession of the vehicle from this person who also put his signature in the inventory list. This fact was informed to the petitioner and finally OP sent a notice on 25.06.13 giving a week time to take back the asset by settling the loan dues. Petitioner did not show any interest and then OP again sent a notice dated 29.06.13 giving him 7 days time to clear the dues failing which the vehicle would be sold in the public auction to the highest bidder. The petitioner remained silent even after getting this notice. The OP bank finally sold the asset to the highest bidder for Rs. 45000/- on 30.07.13 and duly accounted the sale amount in the loan account of the complainant.
From the pleadings of the petition, written version of the OP as well as the documents filed by both sides, we frame the following issues. The evidences and written argument have also been considered.
1) Whether the petitioner a consumer under the OP?
2) Whether the OP suffers from deficiency in service?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief from the OP as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
- The petitioner is a consumer under the OP as he has taken loan
from the OP bank in lieu of interest charges
2 & 3
The record transpires that the petitioner failed to pay instalments in proper time. He took loan of Rs. 50,000/- and agreed to pay interest of Rs. 16,500/- but only paid Rs. 30,643/- till 18.05.2013 the OP gave ample opportunity to repay the loan amount before selling the vehicle have a final reminder on 29.06.13 and sent the same through speed post at his residence. But petitioner did not turn up even after getting the reminder notice. Hence, the petition waited the loan agreement made but when the parties and according to clause 15.03, 15.04 & 15.05 clause of the agreement the OP / lender can repossess and sell the asset and borrower can realize any objection. Hence, the OP has acted rightly according to the terms and conditions of the agreement and thus is not deficient in his service. The petitioner is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in decision reported in
I (2012) CPJ 408 (NC) & 2012 (I) CPR 375 (NC) B. Narasimha Vs. The Regional Transport Officer (R.T.A.) & Ors. that taking repossession of the vehicle without notice is bad in law. But in the instant case Prior notice is served upon the complainant. So before selling of the vehicle, the formalities regarding auction for sale has been maintained in the instant case.
II (2013) CPJ 38
Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C., Sasana Puri Someswara Rao Vs. Shriram Transport Finance, Co. Ltd.
Held Repossession of vehicle Default in Payment of instalment Possession of vehicle on ground on non-payment of instalment is a legal right of financier.
II (2013) CPJ 160 (AP)
Shriram Investment Ltd. vs. Paly Redd.
Held loan default in payment of instalment OPs have followed the procedure by issuance of pre-sale notice prior to actual action and the complainant did not issue any notice to OP for payment or take part in auction. Hence, deficiency was not proved.
IPO paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2014/28 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
