Karnataka

Kolar

CC/57/2014

D. Ravi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

IndusInd Bank, & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23/10/2014

Date of Order: 03/05/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 03^rd DAY OF MAY 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 57 OF 2014

Sri. Ravi.D,

S/o. Doddagangappa,

Aged About 23 Years,

R/at: No.678, Hirebidanur Village,

Gowribidanur,

Chikkaballapura District.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuths. K.S. Ravindra Prasad,

& M.Sathish, Advocates)                                        ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

IndusInd Bank, S.L.V. Complex,

India Electronics, Gajana Circle,

Chintamani.

(Rep. by Smt.Shahataj Naseem, advocate for

Sriyuth. Ramakrishna.C, Advocate)

 

2) IndusInd Bank,

No.87, 2^nd Floor, Bull Temple Road,

Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 019.

(Since placed exparte)                                  …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted the complaint (taken read as Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) has sought relief of directions to the Ops to take the up-to-date installment from him and to release the “Tata Super ACE model goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA-409733 and to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, Rs.20,000/- for loss of income, Rs.10,000/- for harassment,  Rs.15,000/- for conveyance and Rs.2,000/- for miscellaneous expenses.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he made hire purchase of the said vehicle by availing loan facility of Rs.4,14,000/- from the Ops.  And that it was agreed to repay the loan in 45 equal monthly installments of Rs.14,300/-.  And that he had paid 11 installments.  And that only 03 installments in sum of Rs.42,900/- remained arrears.  And that the arrears so remained because of his poor condition and domestic problems. 

 

(b)    Further it is contended that for non-payment of said three installments the Ops seized the said vehicle on 04.09.2014.  And that because of this he was made to face trouble and undergo hardship.  And that on account of this seizure and because of multiplicity of allegations the same has resulted in mis-carriage of justice.

 

(c)    Further it is contended that, in-spite of the repeated requests and demands on his part Sri. Kumar, the Manager of the Ops had refused his requests by abusing him.  Further it is contended that, due to the illegal acts of the Ops, he was constrained to spend Rs.10,000/- for transportation and for other family necessities.  And that the said Manager has been insisting to settle the dues in one lump-sum even when he has agreed to repay the same through the said EMIs.  And that he has been ready and willing to abide by the said agreed terms, but Ops have refused.

 

(d)    Further it is contended that, he made another requesting letter dated: 15.10.2014, but the Ops did not send any reply.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand to seek the above set out reliefs.

 

(e)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted notice dated: 03.09.2014 issued by the Ops, Xerox copy of the registration certificate, Xerox copies of the challens evidencing payment of installments total 07 in number and xerox copy of the requisition letter dated: 15.10.2014.

 

03.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet dated: 25.08.2015 OP-2 has been placed exparte.

 

04.   The OP-1 put in its appearance through the said learned counsel and has submitted written version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto. 

 

(a)    OP-1 has conceded that such a financial assistance was given to the complainant for purchase of the said goods vehicle.  However there is denial of contended repayment by way of said installments.  Per contra it is specifically pleaded that, the complainant had remained in arrears of more than Rs.85,000/-.  And that notices were issued on 02.08.2014 and 03.09.2014 calling upon the complainant to comply.  And that ultimately on 04.09.2014 the said vehicle came to be re-possessed. 

 

(b)    And it is contended that as on the date of the complaint the complainant was still in due of Rs.4,63,491/- and that as expected on or before 21^st of the every calendar month the complainant ought to have paid the EMIs, but failed.

 

(c)    Further it is contended that on receipt of the said notice dated: 15.10.2014 the complainant was contacted and he was requested to make entire payment of overdue.  And that he was even to pay repossession charges along with the yard parking charges.  And that instead of complying; the complainant has approached this Forum.  Further it is contended that relationship between them is that of the debtor and creditor.  And that as per principles enunciated in 2006 (3) CLT Page 330 financier does not render any service within the meaning of the said Act.  So contending, dismissal of the complaint has been sought with a plea to direct the complainant to pay the dues up to date.

 

05.   On 25.08.2015 the OP-1 with list has submitted the following six documents:-

(i) Certified copy of loan agreement

(ii) Certified copy of First schedule and second schedule

(iii) Certified copy of Irrevocable power of attorney

(iv) Repayment schedule – Annexure “B”

(v) Certified copy of statement of account – Annexure-C

(vi) Certified copy of Annexure – D to G.

 

06.   On 04.04.2015 the very complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence and with a memo has submitted following documents:-

(i) 07 original receipts paid Rs.1,57,300/- for 11 installments

(ii) IndusInd Bank, borrower original details sheet.

(iii) 2 photos of vehicle.

07.   On behalf of OP-1 Sri. R. Lakshmikantha, Legal Executive, has submitted his affidavit evidence.  There could be neither written nor oral arguments at the instance of the complainant.  Whereas OP-1 has submitted the written arguments and the said learned proxy counsel for the OP-1 on 28.04.2016 has submitted the oral arguments. 

 

08.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether OPS could be termed as service providers?

 

2. If so, whether the complainant has been successful in establishing that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

3.  If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

 

4.  What order?      

 

09.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1 & 2:-          In the Negative.

 

POINT 3:                 Does not survive for

consideration.

 

POINT 4:                 As per the final order

                                for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT 1 to 3:-

10.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

(a)    It is an admitted fact that by availing the said financial assistance of Rs.4,14,000/- as extended by the Ops the complainant made purchase of the said Tata Super ACE goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA-409733.  Further it is also indisputable that as on the date of the complaint the complainant had remained in arrears of paying 03 EMIs in a sum of Rs.42,900/-, whereas, according to the OP-1 the said arrears were more than Rs.85,000/-.  So what would emerge from these pleadings would be that as on the date of the complaint the complainant was in arrears as he had committed default in payment of EMIs up-to-date.

 

(b)    It is not that surprisingly the Ops seized the said vehicle on 04.09.2014, contrary on 02.08.2014 and 03.09.2014 the Ops made attempts to bring to the notice of the complainant that, he was very much in arrears.  The very complainant has submitted certain said documents along with the complaint.  The very first document is the notice dated: 03.09.2014 where through the Ops brought it to the notice of the complainant to pay the arrears in a sum of Rs.3,59,280/- (+) parking charges.  Therefore the relationship between the complainant and the Ops remained as that of debtor and creditor respectively.  So, at no point of time the Ops became service providers.  As such, none of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could be invoked by the complainant.  Hence the said are the findings on these points.

 

POINT 4:-

11.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

(01)  For foregoing reasons the complaint stands dismissed with costs of Rs.500/-.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 03^rd DAY OF MAY 2016)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                           MEMBER                  PRESIDENT