IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 60/10 DATED 27.04.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Udayakumar.S., <br /> S/o Shivanna,<br /> No.305, Bannur, <br /> T.Narasaipura Taluk, <br /> Mysore District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. C.N.B., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Manager,<br /> ICICI Bank Limited,<br /> RAPG, D Shetty Mansion, D.No.34/2,3,4,7, First Floor, Ramavilas Road, Mysore-570024.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. T.M., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 18.01.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 08.03.2010<br /> Date of order : 27.04.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTHS 19 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- alleging illegal seizure and sale of the hypothecated vehicle.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, the complainant borrowed loan from the opposite party to purchase three wheeler goods Auto No.KA-09-A-6409 and executed an agreement dated 14.09.2006. The complainant made down payment of Rs.35,000/- to the opposite party. Loan was Rs.1,07,000/-. The complainant has paid in all Rs.1,02,230/- as narrated in second paragraph of the complaint. The opposite party without notice, seized the vehicle on 19.06.2009. While seizing the vehicle, opposite party damaged goods in the vehicle to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. After seizure of the vehicle, opposite party sent a letter and telegram dated 22.06.2009 and demanded payment of the alleged amount due. After seizure of the vehicle, the complainant approached opposite party many times to furnish particulars of the actual balance, but opposite party did not furnish. Hence, the complainant sent notice dated 14.09.2009 calling upon the opposite party to return the vehicle. There is no response from the opposite party. It amounts to deficiency in service. Further, it is alleged that, the complainant having paid Rs.1,02,230/- and Rs.35,000/- down payment in all Rs.1,37,230/-, is excess than the loan. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in the version, at the outset contended that, the complainant is not a consumer and the transaction is of commercial nature. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. It is contended that, the complainant has falsely alleged that a sum of Rs.35,000/- has been made to the opposite party as down payment. The cheque issued by the complainant towards first EMI itself was bounced. The extent of amount alleged to have made by the complainant, is denied. It is contended that, after several letters and demands, the complainant did not bother to discharge the dues. Hence, as per the agreement, opposite party repossessed the vehicle on 19.06.2009. Pre-sale notice was sent on 22.06.2009. After sufficient time, vehicle has been auctioned for Rs.33,750/-. Still complainant is due in a sum of Rs.25,543/-. Post-sale notice was also sent on 27.08.2009. The complainant instead of paying the outstanding dues, with dis-honest intention issued notice on 14.09.2009. All other material allegations are specifically denied. It is further specifically contended that, notice was sent to the complainant, but he did not claim it. Accordingly, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complaint has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, power of attorney holder of the opposite party has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of both the learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- According to the complainant he raised loan of Rs.1,07,00/- from the opposite party to purchase the vehicle in question and it was hypothecated. At the time of loan, he made down payment of Rs.35,000/- and thereafter, on various dates, a sum of Rs.1,02,230/-. The complainant has specifically stated that, entire loan has been repaid. Thus, the complainant has alleged that, in spite of payment of entire loan, without notice opposite party seized the vehicle on 19.06.2009. Said seizure is illegal. In para 6 of the complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that, in fact the payment made by him is in excess to the loan amount. On the other hand, the opposite party denying the said contention, has stated that, the loan was to be repaid by 36 monthly installments, each of Rs.3,925/- and the cheque issued by the complainant towards first EMI came to be bounced. Amongst other facts, opposite party further contended that, even after several letters and demands, complainant did not bother to discharge the outstanding dues, and hence, as per the agreement, vehicle has been re-possessed and even pre-sale notice was sent and it came to be auctioned etc.,<br /> <br /> 8. As noted above, the complainant claims that, he has discharging entire loan and further his contention is that, payment made is in excess to the loan agreement. On the other hand, opposite party contend that, the complainant is defaulter and the amount of Rs.59m093/- was due as on the date of repossession. Admittedly, loan amount is Rs.1,07,000/-. The total payment made by the complainant as mentioned in the second paragraph, is Rs.1,02,230/. The complainant further claims, down payment of Rs.35,000/-. The opposite party has contended that, said down payment is made to the dealer of the vehicle and not to the opposite party. To prove that, said down payment was made to the opposite party, the complainant has not produced any documents. Considering the admitted loan agreement between the parties and other documents on record discharge of entire loan is not proved. Under the circumstances, the claim of the complainant that, entire loan has been discharged or payment made is excess than the loan agreement, is false or incorrect. Consequently, the contention of the opposite party that complainant is defaulter and that he was due as contended, shall have to be believed.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant alleges that, without notice opposite party seized the vehicle. Though prior to the date of seizure of the vehicle, no notice was served on the complainant by the opposite party, the opposite party had sent telegram to the complainant stating that, they are seizing the vehicle for non-payment of the loan. After seizure of the vehicle, the opposite party sent another telegram and was also, pre-sale letter dated 22.06.2009. Hence, from the records, on the date of the seizure, telegram sent by the opposite party to the complainant and further, admittedly, before the vehicle was sold, the opposite party informed the complainant regarding seizure and called upon the complainant to pay the amount due. As noted above, it was on 22.06.2009. By the letter dated 11.04.2009 opposite party had called upon the complainant to pay the amount dues, failing which legal action will be taken. The complainant did not claim the said letter. At the cost of repetition, before sale of the vehicle, opposite party had sent notice to the complainant, but there was no response. Thereafter, only on 19.09.2009 the complainant sent legal notice. Considering these facts, the contention of the complainant that, seizure and sale of the vehicle by the opposite party is illegal, has not been established.<br /> <br /> 10. Accordingly we answer the point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 27th April 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />