Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/466/2015

Vivek Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil K. Dixit

06 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/466/2015
Date of Institution	:	23/07/2015
Date of Decision	:	6/05/2016

 

Vivek Mahajan s/o Sh. L.K. /Mahajan r/o H-179, Spangle Condos, Zirakpur.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Kotak Mahindra Bank, SCO No.153-154-155, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Loan Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for the complainant.
	:	Ms. Kavita Sharma, Counsel for the OP.

                       

                 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Vivek Mahajan, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Kotak Mahindra Bank, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he got re-financed machine, one T HEX 1110 (Excavator) vide loan agreement dated 23.2.2010 and submitted the original bill of the machine at the time of re-finance as the machine is only recognized by the original bill. According to the complainant, he cleared his entire loan and accordingly the OP issued the No Dues Certificate dated 11.3.2015 (Annexure C-1), but, it did not return the original bill.  The complainant has averred that it is very difficult and next to impossible for him to run the machine without the original bill of the machine.  The complainant also served a legal notice dated 26.4.2015 (Annexure C-2) upon the OP, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written reply, the OP has admitted the factual matrix of the case.  However, it has been contended that the complainant had only submitted a photocopy of the bill/invoice as per the requirement for legal formalities.  It has been stated that the present complaint is based on vague and frivolous grounds as retaining of the original bill would serve no purpose to the OP.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The complainant through its duly sworn affidavit has alleged that the Opposite Party did not return the original bill of the machine T Hex 1110 (Excavator) which the complainant submitted to it to get the machine re-financed vide agreement dated 23.2.2010.  The main grouse of the complainant is that it is very difficult for him to run the machine without its original bill. Annexure C-2 dated 26.4.2015  the legal notice was also served upon the Opposite Party but no reply was even sent by the Opposite Party to this legal notice.
7.         The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that complainant submitted only photocopy of the bill/invoice as per the requirement of the company’s process of finance. Therefore, it is not deficient in rendering service.
8.         It is an admitted fact that the Opposite Party issued no due certificate in favour of the complainant only after receiving the full and final payment from the complainant. It has been stated by the Opposite Party that for fulfilling the legal formalities with regard to the finance, only photocopy of the original bill is sufficient however, the Opposite Party has not produced any cogent and authentic evidence/document in the form of its terms and conditions which could prove that original bill is not required at the time of finance.  The bald assertion made by the Opposite Party cannot be believed unless and until the same are proved on record. It is pertinent to mention that as per the complainant the machine in question does not have any registration certificate which has not been rebutted by the Opposite Party.  Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party for not returning the original bill to the complainant even after issuing NDC in favour of the complainant after accepting whole due amount and later forcing the complainant to get indulged into present unnecessary litigation, certainly amounts to deficiency in rendering service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.  Hence there is enough merit in the complaint and the same deserves to be allowed.
9.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To return back the original bill of the machine in question to the complainant.

(ii)    To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice thereby causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant 

(iii)   To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

10.         This order be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from payment of costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	sd/-
06/05/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
Hg/mp	Member	Presiding Member