Kerala

Idukki

CC/16/2021

Ashin Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

IndusInd bank ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: Sooraj S Sivan

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

 

 

DATE OF FILING : 02/02/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of October 2022

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.16/2021

Between

Complainant                            :   Ashin Joseph, S/o Joseph,

                                                     Thykkoottathil House,

                                                     South Punnamattom, Kadavoor,

                                                     Kothamangalam, Ernakulam District.

                                                     (By Adv.Sooraj S.Sivan)

                                                           And

Opposite Party                        :   1 . The Manager,

                                                          Indusind Bank, Thodupuzha,

                                                          1^st Floor, CMK Complex,

                                                          Vengalloor P.O., Thodupuzha – 685 584. 

                                                     2 . The Manager,

                                                           Indusind Bank, 8400, Gourinarayan, M.G.Road,

                                                           Opposite New Jayalakshmi Silk,

                                                           Shenoy’s, Ernakulam, Pin – 682 035.

                                                         (Both by Adv.V.C.Sebastian)    

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder:-

 

1 . On 23/08/2018, complainant had purchased ‘Yamaha FZS Model Bike worth Rs.85,448/- from Travence Autocraft LLP, Vengalloor P.O., Thodupuzha.  Also, complainant had availed loan of Rs.85,000/- from opposite  parties for purchasing the bike.  As per the loan agreement, Rs.1,22,755/- including interest to be repaid with 36 monthly instalments.  Thus, complainant has repaid Rs.1,56,622/- as 25 instalments till 19/02/2020.  Thereafter, unfortunately, complainant was not able to repay the EMI as properly due to some financial difficulties.

 

(Cont....2)

 

 

-2-

 

2 . Before ending the term of loan, on 18/12/2019, staff of opposite parties have forcefully taken the bike from complainant’s house. Thereafter, opposite parties have sold this bike to another person without complainant’s consent.  So, complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony due to these acts of opposite parties.

 

On 07/09/2020, complainant has received lawyer notice.  As per this notice, it was informed that complainant has to repay Rs.14,627/- along with penal interest and other charges to opposite parties institution.  Otherwise, legal actions would be taken without other information.  But, complainant was ready to take back the bike with repaying the due amount.  But opposite parties were not ready to return the bike to complainant.  Moreover, it was not informed to complainant that the bike is sold for how much amount.  The bike was sold by opposite parties as illegally and without any communication to complainant.  Complainant has repaid more amount than said in agreement.  These acts of opposite parties are unfair trade practice.  Also, this is service deficiency on the part of opposite parties.  Opposite parties have no right to sell the bike without the information to complainant.   Therefore, complainant has prayed the following reliefs.

 

a) . Opposite parties may be directed either return the bike or refund the amount Rs.1,56,622/- which complainant paid to opposite parties bank and the amount received which was sold the bike along with 12% interest.

 

b)  Opposite parties  may be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

 

Upon receiving notice from the Commission, opposite parties have appeared and filed detailed written version.

 

Contentions of opposite parties are discussed hereunder.

 

Opposite  parties  vehemently denies all the allegations/statements mentioned in the complaint except that those are expressly admitted hereunder and put the complaint to strict proof of the rest.

 

(Cont....3)

 

-3-

 

Complainant had approached opposite party bank for financial assistance to purchase of two wheeler identified by him.  For same complaint furnished documents along with application based on the application, documents and representation by the complainant, the opposite parties has agreed to pay advance amount as required by the complainant.  For which he executed loan agreement bearing No.EMG01057H dated 27/08/2018  and availed an amount of Rs.85000/- and complainant agreed to repay the same along with interest charges of Rs.25,449/- totalling an amount of Rs.110449/- to be repay in 36 equated monthly instalments, payable on 21^st day of every month.  Opposite parties bank has clearly explained about all the terms and conditions of the loan agreement including default clauses, levy of additional interest charges etc and only after understanding the same, the complainant and co-borrower had executed the loan agreement.

 

The total invoice value of the vehicle is 96796/- which includes, basic price, insurance, registration cost and permit cost.

 

The fact is that the complainant availed an amount of Rs.85000/- and complainant agreed to repay the same with interest charges of Rs.25449/- totalling an amount of Rs.110449/- in 36 equated monthly instalments each of Rs.3156/-, payable on 21^st day of every month.  Complainant only paid Rs.4520/- and his last payment is on 19/10/2019 Rs.3500/-.  The second instalment cheque of the complainant itself returned on 21/10/2018 and he has paid that amount on 19/11/2018 and his third instalment cheque were returned on 21/11/2018 and he has paid that amount on 10/12/2018.  His fifth instalment cheque were returned on 21/11/2021 and he has paid that amount on 26/02/2019.  After that, all his instalment cheque are returned.  It is very evident from the statement itself that the complainant is a purpose full defaulter of the said account.

 

Complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to the bank, because of his financial problem.  It is false that no communication was given by the person after giving the vehicle back to the opposite party.  We had given so many chances to the borrower to clear the OD and take back the vehicle to the customer.  But even after so many phone calls and visit to the customer, he denied to pay any amount to the opposite party.  Thereafter we send pre sale notice to the customer regarding the sale  proceedings  on  31/12/2019  through  registered  post.   Complainant after

(Cont....4)

 

 

-4-

understanding the notice from postal department, denied to accept the notice and notice returned unclaimed.  On the 19/02/2020, the opposite parties has sold the vehicle to the highest bidder through online auction on 19/02/2020 of Rs.52250/- and the amount accounted the complainant’s account.  After the sale of the vehicle an amount of Rs.12910/- as the instalment balance and Rs.1716/- as addition interest were pending on 19/02/2021.  There after we send arbitration notice to the customer on 12/11/2020 regarding the arbitration proceedings.  But the borrower do not respond to that also.

 

The borrower is rising all the contention as and when he receives the arbitration petition copy.  In the Arbitration petition clearly explains all the facts about the loan.  This action is with some ulterior motive in order to defeat the legal process of recovery of balance money.  The borrower is using some technics in order to defeat the legal action.  The complainant is rising all the allegations only in this stage with some hidden motive.

 

Fact is surrendered vehicle was already sold by the opposite party after giving proper intimation to the complainant.  Knowing all these facts, the complainant is accusing the opposite party baselessly.

 

He is an intentional defaulter and now trying to take unlawful gain by using legal measures.  Complainant is intentionally alleging certain baseless charges against the bank in order to get some unlawful advantage.  We haven’t done any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to complainant.  We have already issued a statement copy to the complainant in this regard also.  So complainant is not entitled for any claim.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with cost to this opposite parties.

 

Complainant has not adduced oral evidence.  Four documents produced by complainant and these were marked as Exts.P1 to P4.  5 documents were marked on the part of opposite parties.  No oral evidence adduced.  Now, the points which arise for consideration are

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the reliefs entitled to complainant?

 

(Cont....5)

-5-

The points are considered together.

 

We have perused the complaint and documents which were marked.  According to complainant, it is alleged that even though he had paid Rs.1,56,622/- as 25 instalments, till 19/02/2020.  Opposite parties have repossessed  the bike as forcefully from him on 18/12/2019.  It is not believable that complainant has repaid the amount after repossessing the bike by opposite parties.  Therefore, according to our view, there is no repayment by complainant to opposite parties till 19/02/2020.  After perusing the documents which were marked on the side of opposite parties, it is found that the bike was sold on 09/01/2020.  Before selling, there was a communication to complainant as per Ext.R2 and Ext.R3 ie, postal receipt and notice dated 30/12/2019.  On perusal of postal receipt and notice, address of complainant was same as in the complaint.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that opposite parties have communicated about the sale of the bike to complainant.   But, complainant did not take any steps to settle the loan account and received the bike.  Moreover, it is not proved that opposite parties have received more interest than said in agreement.  According to complainant, opposite parties have forcefully taken the bike from him on 18/12/2019.  But, there is no evidence adduced by complainant to prove that he has taken steps against the repossession of bike by opposite parties.  In our opinion, if there was some reasonable demands in the  allegations  against the acts of opposite parties, complainant would have taken further steps at the time of repossessing the bike.  But, there is no evidence to show that complainant was ready to take back the bike after repossessing by opposite parities. 

 

From the above discussion, it is found that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  As a result, complaint is dismissed without cost.

 

       Pronounced by this Commission on this the  28^th day of October, 2022.

 

                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                  SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                       SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                Sd/-                                                                             

                                                                       SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

(Cont....6)

-6-

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Travence Autocraft LLP – Invoice dated 23/08/2018

Ext.P2 - Copy of Certificate of Registration

Ext.P3 – Statement of Account dated 27/10/2020

Ext.P4 – Lawyer Notice dated 07/09/2020

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - Statement of Account dated 25/02/2021

Ext.R2 - Copy of postal receipt

Ext.R3 -  Notice issued to complainant from opposite parties dated 30/12/2019

Ext.R4  -     Delivery details of registered post.

Ext.R5  - Copy of General Power of Attorney          

                                                                    

                                                                                              Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR