Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/1007/2011

THE MANAGER, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

K. KANNAN - Opp.Party(s)

M.B. GOPALAN

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                                    BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                        Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

                                                                F.A.NO. 1007/2011

[Against the Order in  C.C No.108/2010 dated 4.8.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Salem ]

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

1. The Manager

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,

Plot No.12, S.No. 98, Bharathi street

Alagapuram, Salem 636 004     

            

2. The General Manager

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,

Regd. Office. 13/38 A, Nariman Bhavan

20027, Nariman Point, Mumbai 4000 021                                        ..Appellant/opp.parties

 

                                      VS

K.Kannan,

284-477, Old Suramangalam

d-21, Ammasi Gounder street

Solampallam, Salem 636 005                                                                  ..Respondent/complainant

                    

Counsel for Appellants/opp.parties     : M/s M.B.Gopalan

Counsel for Respondent/complainant  : M/s I. Muthiah

 

       The opposite parties are  the appellants.  The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/opposite parties  filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Salem in CC.No. 108/2010 dated 4.8.2011 . 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 4.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Salem this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The opposite parties are the appellants.

2.       The complainant availed loan for the purchase of heavy commercial vehicle, Trailer goods Ashok Leyland – AL 3516 by entering into agreement on 30.10.2007 having tenure of agreement of 47 months at the rate of Rs. 31,130/- from 1.12.2007 to 1.10.2011 by availing finance for Rs.11,40,000/- from the 1^st opposite party and paid 14 installments upto 31.1.2009. The vehicle met with an accident and so the vehicle was left in the workshop for few months due to repairs and the complainant could not continue to pay the monthly installments since 2.2.2009.

3.        On 21.9.2009 when the vehicle was proceeded from Kulithalai to Namakkal, it was way laid  and the amount of Rs.12,000/- was snatched from driver and the vehicle also taken away forcefully and the police complaint was given and with the direction of High Court, the vehicle came to known to seized by the opposite party without intimation and sold the public auction without following due process of law . The vehicle was taken possession along with the attached trailer to the cabin which was purchased from the own money of the complainant along with 36 items of accessories which are not covered under the agreement. The above act of the opposite party caused mental agony and heavy monetary loss to the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice on 13.3.2010 to both the opposite parties and the same was received by them and reply notice dated 12.4.2010 was sent by the opposite parties denying all the allegations. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle, trailer and accessories etc., and to award a sum of Rs.2 lakhs toward mental agony, stress and strain as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost.

4.          The opposite parties denied the allegations before the District Forum contending that they have followed the procedure in seizing the vehicle, since the complainant had not settled the dues.

5.          The District Forum after an enquiry, allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation and damages to the complainant for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as cost.

6.        Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties filed the appeal contending that the District Forum failed to appreciate the contractual right of seizure in case of default has been upheld in several cases by the Apex court and there can be no grievance raised by the complainant after having executed the Agreement vesting such right in the Appellant and also receiving the amount financed and the complainant had accumulated substantial arrears and had allowed not only seizure of the vehicle but also took no steps whatsoever after seizure to settle the accounts or seek return of the vehicle and the legal notice was given after inordinate delay and only as a counter blast to the claim for balance due after sale of the vehicle and as such was not bonafide. Hence the appeal to be allowed.  

7.       We have heard both side arguments and perused the materials in this regard. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant having availed loan for purchase of vehicle failed to pay the installments in regular way and because of the same, the vehicle came to be seized and sold public action for the adjustment of loan dues. The contentions of the complainant that the vehicle was seized and sold without following rules and regulations without his knowledge. The complainant did not deny the failure of payment admitted that he could not pay the dues after the 14^th installment due to accident caused to the vehicle and he had no income and filed Ex.A.4 only for nine numbers. He had issued a legal notice under Ex.A.7, only on 19.3.2010 when the vehicle said to have been way laid and taken away by the criminals after snatching money from the driver on 21.6.2009 and subsequently ascertained the seizure of vehicle through the police on filing writ before the High Court. The opposite parties contended that they issued telegrams on 21.6.2009 and Ex.B.5 after sending various notices under Ex.B.1 to B.4, prior to that of recalling the entire amount and intimating the seizure of the vehicle by telegram under Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7 and  the publication effected for public auction under Ex.B.9 after assessing the value of the vehicle under Ex.B.10, they followed the process for the settlement of loan and alleging that there is a balance payable by the complainant for Rs.39,364/- in their grounds of appeal. In those circumstances, those process of the appellants were not disputed and when the complainant himself having dues payable for the loan of Rs.11,40,000/- admitting that he had paid only 14 installments at the rate of Rs.31,130/- in all for Rs. 2,12,660/- though being a defaulter since the vehicle was already seized and sold in auction, the opposite parties even though alleging that the complainant has to pay further sum of Rs.39,364/-, when the complainant had actually paid Rs.2,12,660/-. The District Forum awarded only Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation, since the complainant alleged that he had improved the vehicle with accessories and attachment of trailer to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs and in those circumstances, we are of the view, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the District Forum is an acceptable one and also only a sum of Rs.5000/- is awarded as cost and thereby we are inclined to confirm the order of the District Forum, Salem in CC.108/2010 dated 4.8.2011 and accordingly,

        In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Salem in CC No 108/2010 dated 4.8.2011 .   

        No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                               A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER