Haryana

StateCommission

A/712/2017

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN KATYAL

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.712 of 2017

Date of the Institution:12.06.2017

Date of Decision: 16.08.2017

 

1.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Commercial Vehicles SCO No.153-154-155, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., near Peer Baba Motor Market, Ambala City, through its Manager.

                                                                                                .….Appellants

Versus

 

Manoj Kumar son of Sh. Randhir Singh, R/o House No.105/1670 near Govt. School Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Varun Katyal, Advocate for the appellants.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Anr. – OPs are in appeal against the Order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Ambala, whereby the complaint of Manoj Kumar has been partly allowed with the following directions:-

1. to pay Rs.79,629/- to the complainant with interest @9% from the date of complaint till its realization,
2. to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant and 
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

2.      In brief, according to the complainant, he had purchased a vehicle for self employment and availed the loan facility under the commercial vehicle loan scheme from the OPs. On 05.02.2012 agreement No.CV-2492249 was reduced in writing between the complainant and the OPs and a loan of Rs.8,10,000/- was sanctioned in his favour. The complainant paid monthly installment of Rs.24,457/- i.e. 45 installments and the vehicle in question was delivered in the last week of March, 2012, whereas he had to pay the first installment of loan on 01.03.2012. Thereafter, the complainant paid the 2^nd installment within time, but due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not deposit the next two installments within time. On 05.07.2012, when the complainant was away from his house, for transportation of goods in the vehicle in question, the vehicle was forcefully repossessed by the musclemen of the OPs. This was, in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement and as the OPs repossessed the vehicle forcefully and illegally without giving any prior notice to the complainant, against the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievances.

3.      Justifying their action, the OP pleaded that as per terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the agreement was a binding contract between the parties. Moreover, the complainant in his complaint had not alleged any breach or violated any of the previous provisions and conditions of the contract. The complainant had availed loan from the company and signed the agreement after understanding all the terms and conditions of the agreement and the loan was advanced to the complainant to be repaid in monthly installments. The other allegations made in the complaint were denied and the Ops prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. However, the learned District Forum, agreeing with the complainant partly allowed the complaint on 27.04.2017 by granting him the aforesaid relief. 

4.      Against the impugned order dated 27.04.2017, the OP / appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. In nutshell, the OPs are pleading that the complainant had entered in to a commercial transaction and the vehicle was purchased by him for a commercial purpose. This is on the face of it in correct and against the record as the complainant had applied for and purchased the vehicle for self employment and for his livelihood. Infact, the crux of the entire dispute is whether the OPs were duty bound to issue notice to the complainant before repossesive the vehicle. They have completely failed in discharging their duty, hence  there is clear deficiency on the part of the OPs. The learned District Forum has, by a detailed and well reasoned order arrived at the conclusion that the OPs are liable to pay an amount of Rs.79,629/- to the complainant. Therefore, the aforesaid directions issued by the learned District Forum regarding the payment of the aforesaid amount alongwith compensation and costs of litigation are wholly in accordance  with law. We do not find any ground to interfere in the same. Hence, the appeal of OPs is dismissed in limini.

5.      Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

August  16th, 2017

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.