Haryana

StateCommission

RP/46/2015

Surender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

21 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No:  46 of 2015

Date of Institution:      04.06.2015

Date of Decision :       21.12.2015

 

Surender Singh s/o Sh. Karan Singh, Resident of 563 B1 Qutabpur, Rewari, Haryana.

                                      Petitioner/Complainant

Versus

1.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, UGF-1-11, Upper Ground Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (India) through Manager.

2.      Inderjeet Singh, Collection Officer, Kotak Mahindra Limited/Municipal Council Market, Opposite Government School Ground, Rewari.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               None for petitioner.

                             None for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated January 28^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Execution Petition No.35 of 2009 having arisen from Consumer Complaint No.465 of 2006.

2.      Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent which was received back with the report that address of the respondent was incorrect. The petitioner was directed to file fresh address. However, the petitioner did not file fresh address. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. For the last two consecutive hearings, the position is the same.  

3.      Surender Singh-Complainant/petitioner, purchased vehicle bearing registration No.HR-47-9027 by raising loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited-Opposite Party No.1. He was paying the instalments of the loan amount regularly. Due to his illness, he could not pay instalment which was due on 14.09.2006. His vehicle was snatched by the opposite parties when he was on the way from Delhi to Rewari. The complainant was ready to deposit the remaining loan amount but the opposite parties did not release the vehicle. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.      The respondents/opposite parties in their reply denied the allegations of the complainant. It was stated that the complainant did not pay the instalments due to which the vehicle was taken into possession as per the loan agreement.

5.      The District Forum vide order dated 20^th August, 2008 allowed complaint. The operative part of the order is as under:-

“…the vehicle was repossessed with in six months of its finance. No notice whatsoever was given to the complainant before repossessing the vehicle. More so, when the complainant was in default of just one installment. The complainant was virtually rendered unemployed. The act of the respondents comes within the purview of sheer deficiency in service. Respondents are directed to redeliver the vehicle so repossessed from the complainant and re-schedule the repayment schedule after releasing the vehicle to the complainant. The respondents shall not be entitled to interest for the period the vehicle remained in their custody. The vehicle has suffered wear and tear and depreciation. As such the complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on this account as well as on account of mental agony and harassment.”

6.      The complainant filed Execution Petition No.35 of 2009 to execute the order. During the hearing it was brought to the notice of the District Forum that the vehicle had already been sold on 27.09.2006, that is, before the decision of the complaint. The vehicle was taken into possession on 14.09.2006 and auctioned/sold on 27.09.2006 while the complaint was filed on 19.10.2006. Thus, the subject did not exist on the date of filing of complaint and therefore the order could not be implemented as it is.

7.      The District Forum in execution proceedings sought calculations of the subject i.e. vehicle from both the parties and after adjusting the loan amount, the excess amount was found to be Rs.1,30,672/-. The District Forum directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,30,672/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 14.09.2006, besides Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant has come in revision for enhancement of the amount.

8.      Indisputably, the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle as on 06.04.2005 was Rs.7,20,000/-. The vehicle was sold on 27.09.2006. By taking 20% depreciation that is Rs.1,44,000/-, the value of the vehicle comes to Rs.5,76,000/-. The loan outstanding against the complainant as on 27.09.2006 was Rs.4,45,328/-.  Thus, after deducting the outstanding amount of Rs.4,45,328/- from the market value of the vehicle, that is, Rs.5,76,000/- the payable amount to the complainant comes to Rs.1,30,672/-, which has been ordered to be paid to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 14.09.2006, that is the date when the vehicle was repossessed by the opposite party. Besides, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded to the complainant as litigation expenses.

9.      Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on the record, this Commission is of the view that the District Forum has rightly assessed the amount at Rs.1,30,672/- payable by the financer to the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, revision petition is dismissed.

 

Announced 21.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL