Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/417/2019

Sohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusland Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.Chaudhary

23 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    417 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         11.09.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 23.05.2022

 

Sohan Lal s/o Shri Sukh Ram, r/o village Narkatari, Pehowa Road, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. IndusInd Bank Ltd., near Canara Bank, Pipli Karnal Road, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. Rupinder Kumar s/o Shri Ram Lal, r/o H.No.47-A, Street No.2, Post Office Bahadurgarh Kasba Rurki, Patiala, Punjab.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri N.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Ashwani Goel, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 22.12.2021.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was the registered owner of one truck bearing Registration No.HR-65A-2819 and plying the same for earning his livelihood. The said truck was hypothecated from the OP No.1 and its current value was Rs.16,50,000/- and insured the same with the insurance company. About 3-4 months back, due to some financial crises, the complainant had not deposited some amount of installments in the office of OP No.1 and due to that reason, the OP No.1 without adopting any legal recourse even without giving any prior notice to him, had snatched his truck from his driver forcibly on 24.04.2019. After that incident, he immediately approached to the OP No.1 and requested not to take law in hands and requested to deliver the truck. Moreover, he was ready to pay the overdue amount of the loan installments, but OP No.1 refused to release the truck. In this way, OP No.1 committed cheating with him and played unfair trade practice, which exposed him to great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                 Upon notice of complaint, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction. The complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and with ulterior motive, he filed the present complaint against OP just to enrich himself by misrepresenting, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant out of his free will has voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the bank and after that, the OP bank had sold the said truck with the consent of complainant for recovery of pending dues. The same is evident from the notices dated 06.05.2019 that was issued to the complainant prior and after sale of vehicle. The complainant now filed the present complaint just to harass the OP bank and prayed for dismissal the same with costs.  

4.                However, during the pendency of present complaint, an application for allowing the complainant to implead Rupinder Kumar as OP No.2 has been filed, which was allowed vide order dated 04.03.2021 and as such, Shri Rupinder Kumar was impleaded as OP No.2 in the present complaint and notice of complaint was issued to him through Publication in Newspaper, but despite that, he failed to appear before this Commission on 21.12.2021, as such, he was proceeded against ex-parte on that date by this Commission.

5.                The complainant, in support of his case, tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R6 and closed its evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for both the parties.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was the registered owner of one truck bearing Registration No.HR-65A-2819 and said truck was hypothecated from the OP No.1 and its current value was Rs.16,50,000/- and insured the same with the insurance company. About 3-4 months back, due to some financial crises, the complainant had not deposited some amount of installments in the office of OP No.1 and due to that reason, the OP No.1 without adopting any legal recourse even without giving any prior notice to him, had snatched his truck from his driver forcibly on 24.04.2019. After that incident, the complainant immediately approached to the OP No.1 and requested to deliver the truck, but OP No.1 refused to release the truck, which is an act of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

9.                The learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that the complainant had not come before this Commission with clean hands and with ulterior motive, he filed the present complaint against OP, just to enrich himself by misrepresenting, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant out of his free will has voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the bank and after that, the OP bank had sold the said truck with the consent of complainant for recovery of pending dues. The same is evident from the notices dated 06.05.2019 that was issued to the complainant prior and after sale of vehicle. The complainant now filed the present complaint just to harass the OP bank and prayed for dismissal the same with costs. 

10.              There is no dispute that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-65A-2819 vide Registration Certificate Ex.C-1/Ex.C-6. There is also no dispute that the said vehicle was hypothecated/financed by OP No.1 for Rs.20,68,000/- from 21.01.2016 to 21.12.2019 i.e. for 48 months with monthly installments of Rs.50,243/- and the total payable amount was Rs.26,16,048/-. There is also no dispute that the complainant failed to pay some due installments, to the OP No.1 as per agreement, and OP No.1 had taken the possession of said vehicle from the complainant and resold the same to OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.10,60,000/-, as is evident from the documents Ex.R-5 & Ex.R-6 respectively.  

11.              Learned counsel for the complainant firstly alleged that OP No.1 illegally and forcibly and without adopting any legal recourse i.e. without giving any prior notice to him, had snatched the truck from the driver of complainant forcibly on 24.04.2019. In this regard, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has contended that the complainant out of his free will has voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the bank and after that, the OP bank had resold the said truck with the consent of complainant for recovery of pending dues. In this regard, learned counsel for OP No.1 has drawn attention of this Commission towards documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2. Perusal of these documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 respectively, we found that Ex.R-1 is a hand written application bearing signature of complainant underneath it and Ex.R-2 is the affidavit of complainant made on 30.04.2019, wherein, the complainant showing his inability to pay the remaining due loan amount and making request to the OP No.1, with his consent and without any force, to surrender and resold his vehicle. So, in view of documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2, the contention of the complainant that OP No.1 forcibly and illegally snatched his truck from his driver, has no force, rather, the complainant himself surrendered the same with the OP No.1 with a request to resold the same.

12.              Learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the truck in question of complainant was duly insured with the insurance company for the considerable period, vide insurance policy Ex.C-2, but the OP No.1 resold his truck to OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.10,60,000/-, which is less than the insured amount, as such, the complainant is liable to receive the balance amount from OP No.1, whichever comes, after deducting the due amount towards him, from the insured amount. The complainant produced copy of alleged insurance policy on the case file as Ex.C-2 and perusal of said document Ex.C-2, we found that the contents of said document Ex.C-2 is not legible and so, from this document, no information regarding insurance of the vehicle in question can be gathered. For the sake of discussion, if contention of the complainant that the vehicle in question was insured with the insurance company, is believed, even then, in the present scenario of the case in hand, complainant is not liable to receive any insurance amount regarding his vehicle in question, from any of the insurance company, because, neither the vehicle of complainant was damaged/burnt nor the same was stolen, rather, the same was resold to the OP No.2 with the consent of the complainant and as such, the insurance policy, if any, which was in existence at that day, that might be transferred in the name of OP No.2. Further, the complainant has not pleaded this issue in his complaint, therefore, he cannot now go beyond/out of the contents of his complaint. So, the contention of complainant that he should receive the insured amount from the OP No.1/insurance company, as per policy Ex.C-2, after deducting the due amount from it, has no force.

13.              The learned counsel for the complainant also contended that the complainant paid the installments of loan amount till 03.03.2019 and when he defaulted in paying the installments of loan amount, at that time, only Rs.4,94,348/- was remained due towards him. Since now the OP No.1 resold his truck for Rs.10,60,000/- to OP No.2, therefore, now after deducting Rs.4,94,348/- from Rs.10,60,000/-, balance comes to Rs.5,65,652/-, which, the OP No.1 is liable to refund the complainant. To support his this contention, the complainant produced copy of Statement of Account of his loan account as Ex.C-3 on the case file and from perusal of that, it is found that till 31.03.2018, an amount of Rs.11,48,348/- was due against the complainant qua the loan in question. But this statement is only showing transactions till 29.03.2018 and not showing any payment of Rs.6,54,000/- made by the complainant till 03.09.2019, as alleged by the complainant. So, in the absence of any documentary evidence, contention of the complainant that till March 2019, Rs.4,94,348/- was remained due towards him, qua the loan in question, is not believable.

14.              On the other hand, in this regard, learned counsel for OP No.1 produced Statement of Account of loan account of the complainant as Mark-A on the case file, in which, till 21.12.2019, an amount of Rs.3,77,370/- was showing due towards the complainant. As per complainant, his truck was snatched on 30.04.2019 and as per document Mark-A, the same was resold for Rs.10,60,000/- on 22.07.2019. On 22.07.2019, the day when the truck was resold, an amount of Rs.2,72,250/- + Rs.2,69,148/- (five due installments i.e. Rs.54,450 + Rs.54,450 + Rs.54,450 + Rs.54,450 + Rs.51,348 = 2,69,148) = total Rs.5,41,398/- was due towards the complainant, qua his loan account. On 22.07.2019, when the truck in question of the complainant was resold to OP No.2 in the sum of Rs.10,60,000/-, at that day, Rs.5,41,398/- was due towards the complainant qua his loan account, as such, after deducting said amount of Rs.5,41,398/- (total due amount towards complainant qua his loan account) from Rs.10,60,000/- (resale value of truck in question), the extra balance comes to Rs.5,18,602/- and as such, the OP No.1 was duty bound to refund the said extra amount of Rs.5,18,602/- to the complainant and then immediately thereafter closed his said loan account. But the OP No.1 did not do so, rather to the utter surprise of the complainant, it continued the loan account of complainant and levied the extra charges on the complainant, even after 22.07.2019, which is not permissible in the eyes of law, and act & conduct of OP No.1, in this regard, amounts to grave deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, on its part, for which, the OP No.1 is liable to refund the amount of Rs.518602/- to the complainant along with compensation and litigation charges. Since no specific allegations have been leveled against OP No.2 by the complainant, nor the same have been proved, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OP No.2.

15.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint against OP No.1 and dismiss the same against OP No.2. We direct the OP No.1 to refund balance amount of Rs.5,18,602/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of filing the present complaint, by the complainant i.e. 11.09.2019, till its actual realization. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.1, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.1 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP No.1. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:23.05.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.