Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/79

Balwinder Kaur & Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Chaudhary Sarwan Ram, Adv.

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

 

                                                    Complaint No.: 79 of 17.11.2016

                                                    Decided on      : 29.11.2016

 

 

      1. Balwinder Kaur, aged about 50 years, wife of Sarwan Ram, 

      2. Sarwan Ram, aged about 64 years, son of Sant Ram

Both residents of Village Dolowal, House No.69, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. 

 

                                                                         .....Complainants

 

                                                          Vs.

 

  1.  Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd, SCO No.153-154-155 Basement,

       Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 2.   Name & Address of agency and agent will be disclosed by respondent No.1, who seized the Truck No.PB-12T-7853

 

 

 

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM

 

              SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

              SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

            

 

PRESENT

 

               None for complainant  

 

 

               ORDER

 

          MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

Sh. Balwinder Kaur and Sh. Sarwan Ram have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as O.Ps.)

 2.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainants purchased a truck bearing No. PB-12T-7853, after obtaining loan from the O.P. No.1. The loan agreement was executed between the complainants and O.P. No.1 at Village Dolowal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib District Rupnagar. O.P. No.1 sanctioned the loan for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 29.9.2014. The complainants were to repay the loan amount in total 47 installment, out of which, they were to pay 12 installments for a sum of Rs.56,200/- per month and rest of the installments for a sum of Rs.53,500/- per month. Complainants paid installments regularly up-to December 2015, thereafter, due to some financial problem, could not pay the installment. On 14.5.2016, when the truck was coming from Srinagar to Madhupur, the O.P. No.2, the agent of the O.P. No.1 has illegally and forcibly seized their truck. Truck remained under the custody of O.P. No.1 in yard at Damtal (HP) from 14.5.2016 to 5.7.2016, where four tyres were damaged. Complainants told O.P. No.1 that they are ready to pay the due installments and requests for release of their truck but it refused to receive the due installments and did not release the truck. The O.P. No.1 told them that it would release the truck provided they pay the total outstanding amount. Due to illegal/forcible repossession of their truck by the O.Ps., they have suffered huge financial loss and have also gone through a lot of mental tension and physical harassment. As such, they are entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss of earning and Rs.50,000/- salary paid to the driver, cleaner and Rs.11,000/- repossession charges, which has been received by the O.P. No.1, Rs.7000/- parking fee of the truck, Rs.1,32,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment. Thus, O.Ps. be directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of ceasing of their truck forcibly till the date of payment. They be also directed to pay cost of litigation.

3.       The complainants have averred that the loan agreement was executed between them and O.P. No.1 at Village Dolowal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. However, they have not placed on record the copy of the loan agreement, thus, in the absence of loan agreement, it cannot be inferred that loan agreement was executed at District Ropar and a cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It may be stated that the O.P. No.2, has been impleaded unnecessarily, whose name and address has not been disclosed by the complainants. They have impleaded Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited, whose office is situated at Chandigarh, but has not impleaded its branch office, if any, situated at District Ropar. Since, neither has any cause of action has arisen within the territory jurisdiction of District Ropar, nor any branch office of Kotak Mahindra Pvt. Ltd, situated within the territory of District Ropar, has been impleaded in the arrays of O.Ps. As such, this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

          For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with no order as to cost. However, complainants are at liberty to approach the the appropriate Forum/Court, for redressal of their grievance and the adjudicating court may condon of delay, if any, as per law.  

5.       The certified copies of this order be issued to the parties, free of cost as per rules, and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 29.11.2016                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                    (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                       MEMBER