Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/54/2015

Gurtej Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Induslnd Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vinay Sood

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.54 of 2015

                                                        Date of institution:  15/06/2015           

                                                      Date of decision   :  09.12.2015

Gurtej Singh aged about 24 years son of Jarnail Singh, resident of village Lohar Majra Khurd, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

Induslnd Bank Ltd., OPP HDFC Bank, Near Main Post Office, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President       

   Smt. Veena Chahal, Member,     

    Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member     

Present :    Sh. Vinay Sood, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

                  Opposite party exparte.                            

ORDER

Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                  Complainant, Gurtej Singh son of Jarnail Singh, resident of village Lohar Majra Khurd, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant had taken loan from the OP for the purchase of Toyota Innova Car for his own use on 27.08.2012. The said loan is repayable in 48  monthly equated installments of Rs.22,026/- each and at the time of taking loan the complainant executed various documents with the OP.  The complainant is regularly depositing the loan installments and till June 2015 the complainant paid Rs.7,10,812/- and total number of 34 installments for Rs.7,48,884/- were due. But due to unavoidable circumstances the complainant could not deposit installments thereafter.  The complainant never intentionally defaulted the payment of OP and the fault in payment was due to unavoidable circumstances which were beyond the control of the complainant.  The OP is threatening the complainant to impound the car in case he fails to deposit the installments.  The complainant is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount and requested for rescheduling the remaining loan amount in installments but the OP is asking to deposit the remaining amount in one go, which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP not to impound the car and further to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony suffered by him and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.               Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP but it choose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, the OP was proceeded against exparte.

4.               In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copy of statement of account Ex. C-2 and attested copy of RC Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.               The Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is not a defaulter and had been regularly depositing the amounts i.e. Rs.25,000/- on 22.06.2015, Rs.5,500/- on 30.07.2015 and Rs.20,000/- on 20.08.2015. He pleaded that the complainant had already deposited the sum of Rs.50,500/- after the filing of the present complaint. The Ld. counsel further stated that this fact has been established by the statement of account exhibited as Ex. C-2(Colly). The Ld. counsel has further argued that the law is well settled that the OP cannot take the possession of the vehicle without issuing a notice or by using force or by resorting to unethical manners. The Ld. counsel has made a submission that in view of his submissions the present complaint deserves to be accepted and the OP be restrained from adopting illegal manner for recovery of the vehicle.

6.                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings and evidence produced by him and oral as well as written submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. It is well established from the statement of account i.e. Ex. C-2(Colly) that the complainant has deposited Rs.50,500/- with the OP after filing the present complaint.  It has come to our notice that the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled as Magma Shrachi Finance Limited & others Vs. Neelam Kumari, in FA No.605 of 2009 decided on 10.09.2013 has observed in para No.16 that “  The Governor, Reserve Bank of India on 01.07.2006 issued the policy known as “The Code of Bank’s Commitments to Customers”, as the said Code is applicable to the banks and financial companies”.  It has also been observed in para No.19, “ As per Section13(2), 60 days notice is mandatory to the borrower in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section 4. But no notice of 60 days for repossession of the vehicle was served by the appellants upon the respondent and against the law, repossessed the vehicle from the legal possession of the respondent”.

7.                 Accordingly, in view of our aforementioned discussion and the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh,this Forum is of the opinion that the OP cannot resort to unethical manners for recovering the vehicle or the loan taken by the complainant. Hence, the OP is restrained from adopting illegal manner for recovery of the vehicle and loan amount. The OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.  The OP is directed to comply with the order of this Forum within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, in case the OP fails to comply with this order the OP shall also be held liable to pay 9 % P.A. interest on the costs awarded till its realization. The present complaint is allowed.                    

8.                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 03.12.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:09.12.2015                                                (A.P.S.Rajput) 

                                                                              President

 

                                                                                (Veena Chahal)    

                                                                                Member

 

             (A.B. Aggarwal)     

                Member