Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/19/2010

Rajinder Singh S/o Narain Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Sharma

25 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 19 of  2010.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 11.1.2010

                                                                                              Date of decision: 25.02.2016.

Shri Rajinder Singh aged about 40 years son of Shri Narain Singh, resident of House No.21, Vishal Colony, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                                           Versus

1. The Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Branch Office Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager/ Recovery Incharge/ Collection Officer.
2. The Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. SCO 153-155, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager

                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                                   …Respondents 

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        

Present: Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. K.K.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Rajinder Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to render the true and correct accounts disclosing sale proceeds and its adjustment in the loan amount of the truck which the OPs had snatched from the complainant on 9.3.2009 and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant availed the financial assistance from OP No.1 to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- vide agreement No. SA-228717 dated 30.7.2008 and an amount of Rs. 5,94,963/- was disbursed which was to be repaid in equal monthly installments of Rs. 19,300/- and from the financed amount complainant purchased one truck bearing No. HR-58A/0065. At the time of furnishing the documents, blank security cheques were handed over to the OPs. The complainant continued paying the installments of the finance truck to the OPs regularly but it was the bad luck of the complainant that truck of the complainant broke down and complainant had to spend huge amount on its repair due to which he could not pay one or two installments. As the complainant could not pay some installments due to which muscleman of the OPs took away the truck number HR-58A/0065 from the complainant forcibly on 9.3.2009 and also took signature of the complainant on several blank forms and papers. After taking forcibly possession of the truck, the OPs in furtherance of their wrongful act and conduct manipulated and fabricated the cheque No. 579767 by manipulating a figure of Rs. 50,000/- and got issued a notice dated 19.05.2009 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument act which was replied on 24.06.2009 stating therein that complainant has never issued any such cheque of alleged sum in discharge of any liability. Again the OPs issued a wrong and illegal notice dated 15.10.2009 wherein it was stated by them that they have sold out the truck of the complainant and after appropriating the sale proceedings, a sum of Rs. 1,18,475/- was allegedly shown outstanding against the complainant. Having felt aggrieved because on one hand the Ops had disposed off the truck after taking its forcible possession and on the other hand, they further alleged that there is outstanding amount against the complainant without rendering any sort of account, the complainant through his counsel sent a legal notice but all in vain. As the OPs took possession of the truck in forcible manner and misused the security cheques and issued wrong and illegal notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and further demanding illegal outstanding from the complainant, so, the act and conduct of the OPs constitute a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

3                      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as without jurisdiction, not maintainable and on merit all the allegations made in the complaint were denied being incorrect and false. It has been further submitted that complainant approached the OPs and stated that he were not in a position to repay the installments and voluntarily surrendered the truck bearing registration No. HR-58A/0065 and on his request truck was taken into possession by the OPs and the complainant had signed the concerned papers and also thereafter issued a cheque in discharge of his legal liability in favour of the OPs. The notice was issued by the OPs to the complainant on actual and correct facts and the OPs never forcibly took the possession of the truck as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. The OP bank is a reputed bank and having its branches all over India and had never violated the instructions and rules framed by the Reserve Bank of India. Lastly prayed that there is no deficiency service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Rajinder Singh as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of payment of installment receipt as Annexure C-1 and C-2, Photo copy of cheque of amounting to Rs. 5,73,830/- as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of letter/ notice dated 15.10.2009 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of letter dated 15.10.2009 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,18,475/- as Annexure C-4, photo copy of repossession kit/surrender letter as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of inventor of item as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Kanwar Lal, Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. as Annexure RX and documents such as Photo copy of loan application as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of guarantor application as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of loan cum guarantee agreement as Annexure R-3, Notice dated 17.1.2009 to recall entire loan amount as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of repossession kit as Annexure R-5 and R-6, Photo copy of notice dated 12.3.2009 for repayment of entire loan as Annexure C-7, Postal receipts as Annexure R-8 to R-10, Photo copy of surveyor report as Annexure R-11, Photo copy of quotation as Annexure R-12 to R-14, Photo copy of letter demanding Rs. 1,18,475/- as Annexure R-15, Photo copy of settlement sheet as Annexure R-16, Photo copy of some proceedings before Arbitrator Tribunal Chandigarh as Annexure R-17 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.

7.                     The only case of the complainant is that musclemen of the OPs took away the truck bearing registration No. HR-58A-0065 from the complainant forcibly on 9.3.2009 and took signatures of complainant on blank papers/ forms and further manipulated and fabricated the cheque bearing No. 579767 mentioning figure of Rs. 50,000/- and issued notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act on 19.05.2009 and further demanded a sum of Rs. 1,18,475/- allegedly shown outstanding in the loan account is totally wrong and manipulated one and prayed in his complaint that OPs be directed to render the true and correct account disclosing sale proceeds and its adjustment in the loan account of the truck.

8.                     On the other hand, plea of the OPs is that all the allegations leveled by the complainant are totally wrong, incorrect and are concocted. Complainant himself has surrendered the truck in question as he was unable to pay the installments and an amount of Rs. 1,18,475/- has been rightly demanded vide letter dated 15.10.2009 Annexure C-4/R-15 by the OPs from the complainant as per account statements Annexure R-16.

9.                     We have perused the account statement submitted by the OPs and from this statement, it is clear that there is a dispute between the parties regarding repayment of the installments as well as interest and other charges from the date of finance and there are so many entries of installments and interest are mentioned in the account statement which cannot be examined in a summary way without cross examine of the witnesses at length and without going through the agreement executed between the parties. Further, the truck in question was surrendered by the complainant himself or was snatched by the musclemen of the OPs forcibly can also be not decided in a summary way and required full-fledged trial. Further more, the dispute involved between the parties is relating to the account, even the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with only prayer to render the true and correct account disclosing sale proceeds and its adjustment in the loan account of the truck and the Ops have filed their account statements and the copy of the same was handed over to the complainants and in the absence of any specific relief demanded by the complainant, we are unable to come to the conclusion that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs because it can be decided by the Civil Court that the OPs have charged or demanded any excess amount from the complainant in violation of their terms and conditions of the agreement.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that to decide the present complaint Civil Court is the best platform. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby disposed off with liberty to approach the Civil Court. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 25.02.2016.

 

                                                                                                      ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                  (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                         MEMBER