Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/17/402

Vikraman P - Complainant(s)

Versus

IndusInd Bank - Opp.Party(s)

18 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

          SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

     SMT.PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

        SRI.VIJU.V.R           : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.402/2017 (Filed on :20.10.2017)

ORDER DATED : 18.05.2022

 

COMPLAINANT

     Vikraman.P

     S/o.Padmanabhan,

     T.C.80/2663, Puthuval veedu,

     Madhavapuram, Titanium,

     Thiruvananthapuram - 695021

          (Party in person)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

          The Manager,

          Indus Ind Bank,

          Near K.S.R.T.C Bus stand,

          Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram - 695506

          (By Adv.Shiby)

ORDER

SRI.VIJU.V.R      MEMBER

              1.  The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986. On 2014 the complainant purchased an auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No. KL-01-BS-2950 from kallingal bajaj showroom by availing loan from the opposite party. The complainant has paid Rs 1,47,850/- towards the loan amount. He has also paid     Rs 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to kallingal bajaj at the time of delivery of the vehicle. On 31/3/2017 he has paid Rs 16,700/- (Rupees sixteen thousand and seven hundred only) as three months due amount to the loan amount. Due to financial difficulties from 2017 onwards the complainant was unable to pay the monthly installments of the loan. On 24/9/2017 the complainant’s son approached the opposite party for clearing the due amount but at that time he came to know that the vehicle was already sold to somebody by the opposite party. The act of the opposite party is illegal and hence this complaint.

         2.       Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that the complaint is baseless and frivolous. It is admitted by opposite party that the complainant approached them for a vehicle loan & on 19/12/2014 they granted    Rs 1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand only) as loan to the complainant. The vehicle loan facility is secured to the complainant by creating security interest on the vehicle by hypothecation of the said vehicle to the bank and entered the details of hypothecation in the Certificate of Registration (RC book) of the vehicle bearing No.KL-01-BS-2950. The complainant has failed to make payment of the outstanding amount in respect of the vehicle loan given by the opposite party. The opposite party has therefore classified the loan account of the complainant as a non performing asset. As per the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party, if any default committed by the complainant in making payment of EMI, the opposite party has the right to reposes the vehicle. The complainant has made default in payment of the EMI starting from 19.05.2016 and thereafter continued the default for the payment of EMI's. The opposite party intimated the complainant about the default committed by him several times. The opposite party had issued demand notice to the complainant for the payment of defaulted EMI's in the address furnished with the bank. The complainant was not ready to regularize the loan amount nor to settle the loan outstanding amount. On 17.07.2017 the complainant voluntarily surrender the hypothecated vehicle to the opposite party. Thereafter on 18.07.2017 opposite party sent pre-sale notice to the complainant through registered post with acknowledgement due in the address furnished with the bank. On 28.07.2017 the opposite party conducted the auction of the above said vechile by complying all the legal formalities, rules and regulations for sale and debited the amount received from the sale of vehicle towards the account of the complainant on the same day. The amount received after the auction of the vehicle was not sufficient to meet the entire due amount. They also contended that the complainant is not maintainable as the complaint is using the vehicle for commercial purposes as he is earning Rs 1200/-per day. There is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite party, hence complaint may be dismissed.

Issues:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

 Issues (i) & (ii):-

Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief-examination and was examined as PW1 & he has produced 8 documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P8 (series). The complainant was cross examined by the opposite party. Opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. It is an admitted fact that the loan was given to complainant by the opposite party. It is evident from Ext P1 that the vehicle was hypothecated with opposite party. It is also admitted by the complainant that he was unable to pay monthly installments due to financial difficulties. On going through Ext P7 it can be seen that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs 1,47,850/- & the outstanding loan amount was Rs 91,203.40. The opposite party has admitted in their version that they have auctioned the vehicle for procuring the due amount. But there is no evidence adduced by the opposite party to show that the auction was conducted after complying with all the legal formalities. So it is to be assumed that the auction was conducted without the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant has paid Rs 1,47,850/- as monthly installment of the loan amount and paid Rs 25,000/- for booking the vehicle. So complainant have no right to claim back these amounts also the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that he had suffered a loss of Rs 1200/- per day, hence that prayer is discarded. The opposite party has auctioned the vehicle without giving proper notice to the complainant. So it is clear that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. Hence opposite party is liable to compensate the complaint.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs 25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant & also pay Rs 2500/- towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amounts except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

                  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

              Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 18^th day of May 2022.

 

                                                                                            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT

 

•  

PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

 

•  

VIJU.V.R: MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.402/2017

List of witness for the complainant

PW1           - Vikraman.P

List of Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                  - Copy of RC book

Ext.P2                  - Copy of contract carriage permit

Ext.P3                  - Copy of Motor policy schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance

Ext.P4                  - Copy of tax license

Ext.P5                  - Copy of receipt from Kallingal Bajaj, Parassala

Ext.P6                  - Copy of proceedings of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram

Ext.P7                  - Copy of statement of account

Ext.P8                  - Copy of statement of IndusInd Bank

 

 

•  

                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

CC.NO.402/2017

ORDER DATED : 18.05.2022