RAJASHREE AGARWALLA,MEMBER:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non- providing the loan account sheet and demand of illegal loan outstanding dues and unlawful repossession of the vehicle of the complainant are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant purchased a Mahindra & Mahindra Tractor TFM&M 575,New Bhumiputra bearing Model No.575(BP)01B14X9X28, BIS No. NHK 2MBB-0377 with drawer and Bumper from Vikranti Motors through the Ops on dtd.31.03.2017. It was agreed between the parties that complainant will pay Rs.5,51,896/- in toto including the subsidy amount. It is revealed that, complainant was paying installments upto dtd.30.10.2018 regularly, but complainant’s brother was under medical treatment at Hyderabad, requested the OP No.2,agent of OP-Bank to collect the pending arrear outstanding of Rs.54,000/, upto Dec.2018, but the Ops illegally demanded Rs.92,000/- towards loan outstanding and threatened to repossess the vehicle. The action of Ops caused financial loss and mental agony and same is treated as deficiency in service. Hence, it is prayed that a direction may be given to Ops to receive an amount of Rs.54,000/- instead of Rs.92,000/-, and not to sale or put into auction of the vehicle and also preys for serving copy of the calculation sheet alongwith Rs.40,000/- towards financial loss and mental agony.
3. On receipt of notice, OP No.1 Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement into the dispute and copy of the written statement duly served on the complainant, OP No.1-Bank on their written statement challenged the maintainability of the complaint and parawise reply submitting the facts of the case, it is averred that, complainant has foisted a false complaint and denies the allegations made in complaint. It is also averred that, complainant is a regular defaulter in respect of payment of loan dues and notices for recall of dues has been served to the complainant-loanee, and the allegation of supply of calculation sheet is denied and averred that the complainant is at liberty to receive loan statements from the OP-Bank without any restrictions. Accordingly, the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
OP No.2 is deleted from the proceeding on the Memo filed by the complainant in connection to non-appearance of OP No.2.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties, perused the documents filed into the dispute. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant availed a loan duly sanctioned by OP-Bank and purchased a tractor as per the schedule of the complaint petition. It is also admitted that the said vehicle has been reposed by the OP-Bank on default repayment of loan dues. It is the case of the complainant-loanee that, the OP-Bank be directed to provide calculation sheet/statement of loan account, the statement of loan account of the complainant is produced before this Forum by the OP-Bank. It is also the allegation of the complainant that as on Dec.2018 the total outstanding remains as Rs.54,000/-, but OP-Bank is demanding Rs.92,000/-, which according to complainant is excess and arbitrary. We, perused the copy of agreement signed between the parties and the copy of the statement of loan account. The statement of loan account reveals that till 10th Dec.2018 the loan outstanding of the complainant remains as Rs.74,919/-, which includes, the interest, overdue charges etc. At the time of argument Ld.counsel for complainant has submitted that, the vehicle in-question has been reposed and kept in the stock-yard of the Opp. party for the disputed defaulting arrear outstandings. We observe that the statement of loan account of any excess charges as alleged by the complainant is not challenged by producing any substantial evidence, further when a valid agreement exists till-date, this Forum can not interfere in the dispute. During course of hearing Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that, the vehicle of the complainant may be released on payment of Rs.54,000/-, which is objected by the Ld. Counsel for OP-Bank, after discussion parties were ready and assured this Forum that on payment of Rs.70,000/- the vehicle shall be released. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that, when the dispute of release of vehicle is settled, we do not feel it proper to discuss the maintainability of the complaint as challenged by the OP-Bank. Accordingly, as per the direction/observation the present C.C.Case and I.A.Case No.18/18 hereby disposed of.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that, complainant shall pay an amount of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees Seventy thousand)only before the OP-Bank and on receipt of the said amount the OP-Bank shall release the repossed vehicle of the complainant within 48 hrs as per schedule of the complainant petition and after release of the vehicle the parties entered into the dispute will act as per the terms and condition of the agreement, failing to comply the direction may impose penal provisions under C.P.Act,1986.
Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 15th day of March,2019.
I, agree
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
