Haryana

StateCommission

A/677/2016

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN KATYAL

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    677 of 2016

Date of Institution:    21.07.2016

Date of Decision :     15.09.2017

1.     Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, G.T. Road, Opposite Railway Road, Panipat, through its Manager.

2.     Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, at Plot No.406-408, 1^st Floor Roopalaya Complex, Rohtak Branch Rohtak through its Manager.

3.     Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited 36-38-a, Nariman Bhawan 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.

4.     Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, UGF 1-11, Ambadeep, 14, K.G. Marg New Delhi-110001.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Jagbir Singh s/o Sh. Zile Singh, Resident of House No.201, Ward No.16, Sanjay Colony, Panipat, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Ms. Anindita Katyal, Advocate on behalf of Shri Varun Katyal, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated June 02^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.128 of 2014.

2.                Jagbir Singh-complainant (respondent herein) purchased truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67-7311. An amount of Rs.2,65,000/- was sanctioned by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited-Opposite Party No.2 for purchased of the above mentioned vehicle. The loan amount was to be paid in 29 monthly installments of Rs.10,685/- each commencing from June, 2011 up to October 01^st October, 2013. The complainant made payment of installments of the loan amount regularly in time and total loan amount has been paid back to the bank. The same Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited sanctioned loan in favour of the complainant regarding purchase of two other truck vehicles bearing registration Nos.HR-67A-2687 and HR-67A-1451 against hypothecation. The loan transactions and loan agreements regarding purchase of these two vehicles have no connection of any type regarding loan amount sanctioned for purchase of truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67-7311.

3.                The complainant handed over truck bearing registration No.HR-67A-2687 to one Pawan Kumar for business purpose under an agreement. However, another vehicle bearing No.HR-67A-1451 was used by the complainant himself. Pawan Kumar could not make payment of the monthly installments of the vehicle and in this regard a dispute arose in between Pawan Kumar and complainant. On the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant, directions were given to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and registration of a criminal case also. However, the complainant obtained possession of the vehicle No.HR-67A-2687 from Pawan Kumar. As the monthly installments of the truck vehicle No.HR-67A-2687 could not be paid, the opposite parties forcibly and illegally snatched the vehicle No.HR-67A-1451 from the complainant. Thereafter, on the basis of a settlement, the vehicle was left with the opposite parties in full and final settlement.  Thereafter, the opposite parties started threatening the complainant to obtain physical possession of truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67-7311 forcibly and illegally and in this situation the complainant had to file a suit for permanent injunction against the opposite parties. After complainant made payment of the total amount due regarding loan amount sanctioned for purchase of vehicle No.HR-67-7311, the complainant requested the opposite parties to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ but the respondents-opposite parties refused to issue the same stating that the complainant had not made full and final payment of the loan amount advanced for purchase of other two vehicles.

4.                As the complainant has made payment of the total loan amount sanctioned regarding purchase of the truck vehicle bearing No.HR-67-7311, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed for issuance of No Dues Certificate regarding vehicle No.HR-67-7311 and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony as well as an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. The opposite parties be also restrained from snatching or obtaining possession of the above mentioned vehicle forcibly.

5.                The opposite parties-appellants in their written version have taken plea that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint in view of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant is not covered under the definition of Consumer as provided under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite parties have taken plea that the complainant was sanctioned loan amount by the opposite parties for purchase of three vehicles mentioned in the complaint. Regarding loan amount sanctioned for purchase of vehicle No.HR-67A-2687 an amount of Rs.1,16,053/- was due as on March 31^st, 2015. As per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties, the opposite parties bank has right to keep in its possession any document relating to ownership of the vehicle financed by the company in case same customer is liable to make repayment of the loan amount regarding other vehicles. In fact the complainant has filed the present complaint to grab the loan amount advanced to him by the opposite parties. Moreover, the loan amount was obtained by the complainant for commercial purpose and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. In fact, legally and technically, the complainant has not become owner of the truck vehicle financed by the opposite parties if the entire loan amount is not paid by the complainant and he was not authorised to hand over the same vehicle to any other person. The complainant Pawan Kumar hatched a criminal conspiracy to grab the loan amount of the opposite parties bank. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the complaint. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with costs.

6.                The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

7.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated June 02^nd, 2016, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed by the learned District Forum directing the opposite parties to issue No Dues Certificate of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67-7311 as the total loan amount has already been paid and to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. The opposite parties were directed to make compliance of the order within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.

8.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated June 02^nd, 2016, the appellants-opposite parties have filed the present appeal No.677 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant at the time of arguments.

10.              During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the vehicles bearing registration No.HR-67-7311; HR-67-2687 and HR-67A-1451 were financed by the opposite parties at the time of purchase by the complainant and the complainant is the registered owner of all these three vehicles. Pawan Kumar is not party to the proceedings of this case. As per version of the complainant, he has given the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67-7311 on agreement basis for using the same. Pawan Kumar did not make payment of the monthly installments of the loan amount and due to this reason the opposite parties obtained possession of vehicle No.HR-67A-1451 from the complainant. Version of the complainant is that the possession of this vehicle was obtained by the opposite parties illegally and forcibly on account of default of payment of the loan amount sanctioned for purchase of vehicle No.HR-67-2687. It is also admitted fact that the complainant later on filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the opposite parties with a prayer to restrain them from obtaining possession of vehicle No.HR-67-7311 forcibly and illegally. Anyhow, there is no controversy of any type in this regard also that the complainant has made payment of the total loan amount advanced to him regarding purchase of vehicle No.HR-67-7311. The complainant requested the opposite parties for issuance of No Dues Certificate but the opposite parties refused to do so. The opposite parties are still not willing for issuance of No Dues Certificate.

11.              Version of the complainant in this case is that the opposite parties are bound to issue No Dues Certificate in connection with the vehicle bearing No.HR-67-7311 as the total loan amount has been paid by the complainant. Version of the opposite parties in written version is that the financer can keep documents of other vehicles also if payment of the loan amount is not made. In fact, controversy in this case is that the opposite parties do not want to issue No Dues Certificate to the complainant in connection with vehicle bearing No.HR-67-7311 merely because the complainant committed default regarding payment of installments regarding the loan amount sanctioned for purchase of other two vehicles. Learned District Forum has given findings in this regard that the opposite parties cannot refuse to issue No Dues Certificate regarding vehicle bearing No.HR-67-7311 as the total loan amount advanced has been paid back to the opposite parties by the complainant.

12.              Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we find no illegality and invalidity in the findings given by the learned District Forum. The complainant also had to face un-necessary harassment and mental agony due to faults of the opposite parties as the opposite parties did not issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainant regarding truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67-7311. It is also clear that due to faults of the opposite parties the complainant had to remain involved in the litigation un-necessarily for such a long time and he also had to spend lot of money in this litigation. Keeping in mind all these circumstances findings of the learned District Forum to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses is also justified. The findings of the learned District Forum to direct the opposite parties to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainant regarding truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67-7311 are also valid and justified. Resultantly, the findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

13.              The statutory amount of Rs.6100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 15.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL