COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 13th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1926/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt.Divya Joy,W/o P.J.Joy,Age 31 years,No.21/7, 4th ‘C’ Cross,Maruthinagara,Madiwala,Bangalore – 560 068.Advocate – Sri.C.V.GiddappaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Recovery Manager, I.C.I.C.I Bank,No.7-A, South End Circle,Near D.C.P.S Office,Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to return the vehicle bearing No.KA-03-EL-2801 and pay a compensation of Rs.85,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.33,000/- from OP in the month of December 2003 repayable in 18 EMI at the rate of Rs.2,092/-. Complainant was required to make payment of the said amount on or before 07.05.2005. After availing the said loan she purchased the vehicle KA-03-EL-2801. She has paid more than 16 EMI regularly and she was interested to close the said loan amount at one time settlement. In the mean time on 04.12.2006 when she parked her vehicle near BDA Complex, Koramangala, Bangalore it was stolen. Then she immediately gave complaint to the Police and also informed the concerned R.T.O. Police were unable to detect the crime and seize the vehicle. In the mean time she came to know that the said vehicle is actually seized by the OP and later on they sold the said vehicle treating complainant as a defaulter in repayment of the loan amount in due. Complainant felt highhandedness on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. OP neither informed her about the default nor about the seizer of the vehicle so also with regard to the sale of the said vehicle. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though complainant repaid the substantial amount, OP acted arbitrarily. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. OP refused to accept the court notice. Hence service is held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appear to be bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that she availed a vehicle loan of Rs.33,000/- from OP repayable in 18 EMI at the rate of Rs.2,092/- starting from 07.12.2003. She purchased the vehicle KA-03-EL-2801, she paid 16 installments without any default. For the remaining out standing balance she was prepared to close the same under one time settlement.<br /> <br /> 5. It is further contended by the complainant that on 04.12.2006 she parked her vehicle near BDA complex, Koramangala, Bangalore. To her utter bad luck the said vehicle was stolen. Then she lodged the complaint of theft to the Koramangala Police and also intimated the R.T.O concerned about the missing of her vehicle. The concerned police are unable to trace the said vehicle and apprehend the culprit. It is further contended that when she contacted the OP and intimated them about the loss and missing of the vehicle to her utter shock and surprise she came to know that it is the OP who seized the said vehicle unauthorizely.<br /> <br /> 6. According to the complainant OP did not issue her any notice of demand treating her as a defaulter before the seizer of the vehicle. They have also not sought for her explanation before putting the vehicle for sale. OP sold the said vehicle for a paultry amount of Rs.16,500/-. Complainant was hardly in due of Rs.13,836/- and OP came forward to pay her the remaining amount Rs.2,664/-. Complainant was not agreeable for the same.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. Her evidence finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. The non appearance of the OP leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. In case of default of payment of the EMI OP may be having the right under the said agreement to seize the vehicle and sell the same. But still the natural justice requires that before opting for such an stringent action a notice would have been caused to the complainant to make her submission with regard to non payment of the EMI, but no such steps are taken. Seizer was not brought the notice of the complainant. No notice was issued before selling the said vehicle. <br /> <br /> 9. Complainant with all bonafides moved the criminal law into motion by filing a complaint of theft and also intimated the R.T.O concerned. With all that OP kept mum. The approach of the OP does not appear to be very much fair and honest. OP has acted arbitrarily so also with a highhandedness. When complainant was willing to settle the said out standing due under one time settlement, there was no need for OP either to seize the vehicle or to sell the same. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> 10. The coercive act of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant that too for no fault of her. Under such circumstances she is entitled for some compensation though not the relief of issuing of directions to OP to return the seized vehicle and pay compensation of Rs.85,000/-. In our considered view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- with a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- with a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br />