Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/85

Dr. Nawal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, RASMECC,State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Hare Ram Singh

29 Jun 2018

ORDER

Complainant Dr. Nawal Sharma has filed this case for a claim of Rs. 2,80,000/- and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.

2          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant has taken a car loan for Tata Safari bearing Registration No. JH09N-9639 from O.P. State Bank at Bokaro on 19.08.2013. Due to economical problem he could not paid EMI of the loan, therefore, on 28.09.2015, illegally by recovery agent the vehicle was seized and no seizure was given to him. Thereafter he filed a criminal case in Marafari P.S.  It is also raised that no notice was served for arrear of the installment by the O.P. Then he sent a legal notice and notice was also replied by the O.P. Bank but there was no satisfactory answer. He has also stated that he paid Rs. 35,000/- as a rent of hired vehicle in absence of the Tata Safari vehicle for 6 months and filed this case.

3          Following documents have been filed by the complainant in support of his claim:-

Anx-1 and 1/1 Copy of Legal Notice and reply by the O.P.

Anx-2 Copy of the Bank Statement.

Anx-3, 3/1 ,3/2 Copies of the FIR Marafari P.S. Case No. 94/15

U/s 395 IPC against unknown, seizure list, order G.R. Case No. 2269/15 dt. 28.0516.

            Complainant himself examined on affidavit as witness.

4          The O.P. Manager, (RASMECC), SBI Bokaro appeared and filed W.S. It is stated that the car loan was sanctioned on 14.08.2013 for Rs. 11,27,000/- to the complainant but the complainant was never punctual  for payment of installment of the  loan. It is submitted that two notices dt. 01.08.2015 and 04.09.2015 were sent by Speed Post but the complainant refused to accept and never paid attention for payment of loan dues which stands  of Rs. 7,91,550/-. It is also admitted that the vehicle was seized on 01.04.2014 by authorized Recovery Agent but on the request of the complainant the vehicle was released for payment of installment in future but complainant did not pay installment and finally the Tata Safari was seized by authorized recovery agent on 29.09.2015 in presence of witnesses. Thereafter the complainant making false and concocted story before the Police resulting registration of the case but the Police has submitted final report as a false and requested to Court to initiate the proceeding U/s 182/211 IPC for making false complaint.   The complainant filed a Criminal Revision No. 50/2016 before Principal Dist. & Session Judge where the O.P. filed rejoinder but the vehicle was released in favour of the complainant as being the owner on conditions level in the revision order. This shows there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. and this frivolous case has been filed to harass the Bank because the loan account has been declared NPA (non paying assets). In this way there is no cause of action for this case and this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5          The following Anxs have been filed by the O.P.

Anx-A Copy of the reply of the legal notice to the complainant.

Anx-B, to B/4 Copies of notices regarding outstanding dues to

          the complainant.

Anx-C& C/1 Copies of notice for seizure of the vehicle due to NPA

            of the loan account .

Anx-D Copy of the Criminal Revision No. 50/2016.

Anx-E Copy of the Bank Statement.

                                                            F I N D I N G S

6          We perused the record and hold that since the complainant has taken loan from the Bank and avail the services, therefore, he is a consumer and the dispute is a consumer dispute.

7          As regard the forceful seizure of the vehicle by the O.P. there is no independent evidence in support of the claim whereas the Anxs C and C/1 of the O.P. shows that the notices were send to the complainant for seizure on account of declaration of the loan account due to nonpayment of EMI of the car loan by the complainant and the notices were also refused and the loan account has been declared non paying assets.

            Anx-3 series filed by the complainant as well as Anx-D of the O.P. shows that complainant has not come up with clean hands and alleged a false and concocted story regarding dacoity of the vehicle for which the Police has submitted final form and requested for a proceeding u/s 182/211 IPC against the complainant for false case.

8          Thus, on the material available on the record shows the complainant is himself on fault and there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. The complainant has also failed to produce any receipt for the payment of hired vehicle for 6 months which also shows the claim is a false claim and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the claim.

9          Therefore, we hold that this complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action, accordingly this case is hereby dismissed.