Haryana

Karnal

CC/490/2020

Amar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Arora

24 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 490 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt 05.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 24.05.2024

 

Amar Singh son of Shri Mohar Singh, resident of village Kairwali Tehsil and District Karnal, aged about 32 years. Aadhar no.4486 6018 3748.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
2. Haryana Automobiles, Jundla Gate, Meera Ghati, Karnal through its owner/proprietor.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Satish Aroa, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Narender Kumar, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Ram Lal Bilan, counsel for the OP no.2

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that in the month of October 2015, the complainant purchased a Swaraj 855 Tractor from the OP no.2, who is authorized dealer of Punjab Tractors. At the time of purchase of said tractor, the complainant was not having enough funds with him and OP no.2 suggested to the complainant that they are having tie-up with the OP no.1 and they will manage the financial assistance for the complainant. The complainant was in need of funds, hence he agreed for the same. Thereafter, OP no.2 called the official of the OP no.1 to his shop where deal was finalized and OP no.1 agreed give loan of Rs.4,56,440/- to the complainant as per requirement of the complainant. The official of the OP no.1 got signed certain blank and printed forms alongwith blank signed cheques from the complainant including loan agreement bearing no.TEE-3546722. The aforesaid loan amount with interest was to be paid in ten half yearly installments of Rs.69,400/- w.e.f. 20.06.2016 to 20.06.2020. After getting completed all the formalities, the OP no.2 asked the complainant that he will get issued the RC of said tractor and would endorse the Hire purchase entry on RC and then would hand over the same to the OP no.1. After that OP no.1 would hand over the said RC to the complainant. OP no.2 will charge the Registration charges of said tractor from the complainant. After getting the loan the complainant started repaying the loan installments as per the repayment schedule to the OP no.1. Once he could not repay the installment, then the OP no.1 illegally snatched the said tractor from the complainant and kept the same in their illegal detention for a long time and the complainant then paid the said defaulting installment. The OP no.1 illegally charged a huge interest, penalty, legal fee, repossession charges and other charges from the complainant and also took one installment in advance from the complainant. OP no.1 assured the complainant that excess interest, penalty, legal fee, repossession charges etc. charged by him will be adjusted and credited in the account of complainant at the time of last installment and settle the account. Then, complainant deposited the abovesaid amount because there was no option left with the complainant to get his tractor released. Complainant started paying the installments regularly. Complainant demanded the RC from the OP no.1 but OP no.1 said that the same would be given after full and final amount is paid i.e. clearance of entire loan amount. The last installment was due on 20.06.2020 and complainant deposited the last installment on 02.06.2020 i.e. prior to last date but OP no.1 started postponing the matter on the pretext that entire documents were with their head office and same would be given to the complainant as and when the same are received back. On 24.09.2020, complainant visited the office of OP no.1 and requested to adjust the excess interest, penalty, legal fee, repossession charges etc. charged by bank and to handover NOC, RC and blank signed cheque, then official of the OP stated that an amount of Rs.42,720/- was due towards the complainant and until and unless the said amount is paid the said documents will not be disbursed. The complainant took the loan of Rs.4,56,440/- and in lieu of that he deposited an amount of Rs.7,27,415/- to the bank, which is the more than the total installment amount and as such the extra/hidden charges debited in his account are totally illegal, null and void. The demand of amount of Rs.42,720.75 and to not refund the excess interest, penalty, legal fee, repossession charges etc. charged by bank and not issuing of NOC, returning of RC and blank signed cheques are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant approached the OP for availing loan for the purchase of tractor since he was in dire need of finances. The proposal of the complainant was accepted by the bank and the detailed terms and conditions of loan agreement were explained to him and his father Shri Mohar Singh, who stood as co-borrower. Both of them assented and gave consent for the terms and conditions of the loan document and schedule of charges in the event of default and by accepting the same in true perspective loan agreement no.3546722 was entered in between the parties on 09.10.2015 and a sum of Rs.4,56,440/- was sanctioned and disbursed. The EMIs to repay the finance amount by the complainant was agreed to be start from 20.12.2015 and after a period of 57 months, the last EMI was schedule to be paid on 20.06.2020. It is agreed by the complainant that after getting the registration certificate of the vehicle, the hypothecation in favour of the OP no.1 will be got entered and submitted to the office of OP no.1. The complainant failed to deposit the equated half yearly installment and registration certificate as agreed under the loan agreement in strict discipline manner. The complainant was time and again reminded to repay the installments but the complainant failed and neglected the genuine demand of OP no.1. As such OP no.1 started arbitration proceedings under the agreement and applied for repossession of the vehicle in question as per agreement executed between the parties. As such Arbitrator passed an order under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for getting the vehicle repossessed. The receiver so appointed by the Arbitrator took the legal repossession of the vehicle in question and accordingly submitted its report. It is further pleaded that complainant and his father approached the OP no.1 and asked to release the vehicle after paying the outstanding installments. The proposal of the complainant was accepted and vehicle was released to them after receiving the outstanding installments. Lateron, the officials of the OP no.1 time and again reminded the complainant and his father to pay the charges/penalties as in agreement but failed to repay the same till date and rather opted to file the present complaint. As such on 05.01.2021, a sum of Rs.52,826/- is due and outstanding against the loan account of complainant. It is further pleaded that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as there is clause of Arbitration in the agreement between the parties. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that in the complaint the complainant has sought the relief directing the OP no.2 to provide NOC of loan amount, handover original RC as well as bank security cheques to the complainant. OP no.2 is the authorized dealer of tractors and whenever any tractor is being sold, then the OP no.2 issues the sale letters and other documents related to the said tractor and it is not the duty of the OP no.2 to get prepared the registration certificate of the tractor, rather it is the duty of the purchaser to get it prepared from the concerned registration authority and as such, the relief being sought by the complainant against the OP no.2 cannot be given to him. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 12.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence Deepak Kumar Yadav, Deputy Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP1, copy of statement of account Ex.OP2, copy of foreclosure charges Ex.OP3, copy of order passed by Arbitrator Ex.OP4, copy of receiver report Ex.OP5, copy of informing police station about repossession of the vehicle Ex.OP6 and Ex.OP7, copy of repossession of inventory list Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on 28.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Zahid Hussain Ex.OP2/A, copy of cash/credit bill dated 08.10.2015 Ex.OP2/1, copy of receipt dated 22.10.2015 Ex.OP2/2, copy of forms no.20, 21 and 22 Ex.OP2/3 to Ex.OP2/5, copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex.OP2/6 and closed the evidence on 13.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a Tractor from the OP no.2 and for purchasing the said tractor, complainant applied loan of Rs.4,56,440/- which was disbursed by the OP No.1. The complainant was repaying the loan installments regularly to OP No.1 and once the complainant failed to pay the installments, then the OP no.1 illegally snatched the said tractor from the complainant and kept the same in their illegal detention and charged huge interest, penalty, legal fee, repossession charges and other charges from the complainant. On completion of loan installments, the complainant demanded registration certificate NOC etc. then official of the OP stated that an amount of Rs.42,720/- is due towards the complainant. Since, the complainant has already paid the entire loan amount then how the said amount is due towards the complainant. The said amount is illegal, null and void and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per-contra, learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.4,56,440/- and the said loan was repaid in 57 months, but complainant failed to deposit the equated half yearly installment and registration certificate as agreed under the loan agreement. The complainant was time and again reminded to repay the installments but he failed and neglected the genuine demand of OP no.1. The vehicle in question was taken into the possession while adopting the due process and same were released on making the default EMI but complainant failed to pay the penalty and interest as promised by him and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that the dispute in question is between the complainant and OP No.1 and OP No.2 has no concern with it and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           The complainant has availed the loan facility from the OP No.1 for purchase of tractor in the month of October 2015. The loan agreement was executed between the parties and as per terms and conditions of the loan, the complainant was bound to repay the loan but complainant failed to deposit the EMIs in time. The vehicle in question was taken into possession by the OP No.1 while adopting the due process and on the promise of the complainant, the same was released to him.

14.           In the present complaint there is dispute only with regard to penalty and interest on the delayed payment. As per statement of account Ex.C1 and Ex.OP2, the complainant had not paid the EMIs in time and due to not giving the EMIs in time, the OP has imposed the penalty as well as interest on the loan amount. Both the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement but the complainant has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

15.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated:24.05.2024                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)    

                     Member                    Member