Haryana

Karnal

CC/44/2020

Maya Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ramesh Kumar

21 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 44 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.20.01.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 21.01.2020

 

Maya Ram (aged about 52 years) son of Shri Ran Singh resident of village Naurta, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal (Aadhar card no.4362 7463 6560)

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., SCO no.246, Sector-12, Karnal through its authorized person/Manager.

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank, GS-3A-3J, ground floor, CP Amandeep 14 KG Marg, Janpath, Barakhamba, New Delhi-110001 through its Regional Manager/ Authorized person.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Ramesh Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                     

 

                        Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

       

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that OPs are Banking Institution and provided the facility of finance on the commercial vehicle also. The complainant approached the OPs to finance his truck, on which they got financed the truck bearing registration no.HR-45C-0035, Model 2018, in the sum of Rs.28,50,000/-, vide agreement no.CV-3663695 dated 24.04.2018, which would be repaid in 45 equivalent monthly installments of Rs.64,700/-. More so, the complainant also obtained another loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.04.2018 pertaining to the body structure of the aforesaid truck, which would be repaid in 30 installments of Rs.3740/- per month vide loan agreement no.CV-3663700. After obtaining the loan complainant started regularly paying the installments to the OPs without any delay and fault and nothing was due towards the complainant, which clearly depicts from the account statement issued by the bank. The complainant remained out of station ad could not deposit some installments to the bank, then on the instruction of the OP, the recovery boy received some of the outstanding installments through the loan account of the complainant. When the complainant demanded receipt from the recovery agent, then every time, he told that a message would be received from the bank for depositing the installment. The complainant is having another vehicle, and the vehicle of the complainant is being driven by  the driver of the complainant does not ply the vehicle as he remained out from the house and as and when the complainant remained in the city, he used to deposit the installment of loan in the office of the OPs. The complainant never received any telephonic call from the OP for any outstanding amount. In the month of December, 2019 the official of the OPs were bent upon to snatch the vehicle of the complainant illegally and forcibly and when the complainant tried to know about the snatching of the vehicle, upon which the official of the OPs told about the outstanding installments, then complainant got issued statement of account from the bank, and found that the said recovery agency has  not deposited 2-3 installments with the bank, then the complainant requested the official of the OP and narrated the above facts but they flatly refused to admit the claim of the complainant and threatened if complainant fails to deposit the outstanding due installments, then they would snatch the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant requested the OP that he is ready to deposit the outstanding installments as early as possible on which the official of the OPs threatened if the complainant does not deposit the total outstanding installment amount, then they would snatch the vehicle of the complainant.

2.             Finding no other way, complainant filed a civil suit and prayed to restrain the official of the OPs not to snatch the vehicle illegally and forcibly and to provide sometime to deposit the remaining outstanding installments, upon which the civil court has passed an order dated 21.12.2019 with the direction to the OPs not to snatch the vehicle illegally and forcibly.  On 17.01.2020 the driver of the complainant came from Maharashtra after loading the truck in question when they reached at the bye pass of Nimmach (Madhya Pradesh), then the official of the OPs snatched the aforesaid loaded vehicle of the complainant, who informed the complainant upon which complainant requested the OPs so many times but they refused to release the vehicle. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs for deposit of the outstanding installments but the official of the OPs flatly refused to receive the amount and to release the vehicle. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

3.             Without going into any other controversy, firstly we have to see that whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The complainant himself alleged in the complaint that he borrowed the loan of Rs.28,50,000/- from the OPs for the truck in question and the said amount would be repaid in 54 equal monthly installments of Rs.64,700/-. It is further alleged in the complaint that complainant had borrowed the another loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.04.2018 which was also to be repaid in 30 installment of Rs.37,40/- per month. Complainant alleged in the complaint that he repaid the some installments to the complainant but in this regard complainant failed to produce any receipt on the record. Complainant alleged in his complaint that he deposited the amount with the agent of the OP but he did not issue any receipt. This plea of complainant is not tenable because a person who deposit the amount firstly demanded the receipt. Therefore, the loan in question is more than Rs.20 lakhs which is beyond the pecuniary of this Forum.

4.             Further, complainant himself alleged in his complaint that he filed a civil suit against the OPs. The Hon’ble Civil Court passed an order to restrain the OPs to illegally, forcibly and unlawfully would snatch the vehicle in question. When a matter is pending before the another court/civil court then the complaint does not lie in the Consumer Forum.

5.             In view of above discussion, this complaint is not fit for admission and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:21.01.2020                                                                       

                                                                      President,

                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Forum, Karnal.      

 

 

         (Vineet Kaushik)         (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                         Member