BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 21st day of December 2013
Filed on : 20-09-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari. V.K. Member
C.C. No. 501/2011
Between
Abdul Rahman K.P., : Complainant
S/o. Mammi, Kannipoyil house, (By Adv. Praveen Hariharan,
Padanilam P.O., Geeyech Associates, IIIrdFloor,
Kunnamangalam, Peedikaathodiyil Bldgs,
Kozhikode-673 571. Near Reserve Bank of India, Lisie Junction, Kochi-18)
And
M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., : Opposite party
S.L. Plaza, Palarivattom, (By Adv. T. Rajesh, 4F Metro
Cochin-682 025. Plaza, Market Road, Cochin)
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 4,40,000/- from the opposite party on hypothecation of vehicle No. KL-11 N-4721 as per loan No. 2246607. The loan account had commenced on 11-02-2006 and was to end on 25-01-2009. The complainant has paid the entire loan amount as per the payment schedule issued by the opposite party. The facts being so on 04-06-2009 the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs. 27,157/- with a further threat of dire consequences. Being afraid of the arbitrary threat made by the opposite party, the complainant paid that amount as well. However the opposite party has not issued HP termination papers as a result of which hypothecation endorsement in the registration certificate of the vehicle still continues. The delay in issuing the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to issue HP termination of the vehicle and also to restrain the opposite party from seizing the vehicle by illegal means.
2. The version of the opposite party.
The complainant availed a loan facility for the vehicle No. KL-11N4721 for Rs. 4,40,000/-. The opposite party had demanded Rs. 27,157/- as the amount covered by the same legally due to the opposite party. The complainant had made the remittance of the amount. The complainant is having other commercial vehicle loan transaction with Account Nos. 90922617 and 90922608 in which an amount of Rs. 3,23,150/- and 2,74,121/- respectively is in default. The opposite party is entitled to have Banker’s lien over the account in dispute and which can not be termed as deficiency in service on their part.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 to B6 were marked. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get HP termination
certificate from the opposite party?
ii. Whether the opposite party is empowered to seize the
vehicle illegally?
5. Point No. i. Admittedly the complainant availed himself a vehicle loan under hire purchase basis from the opposite party and remitted the loan amount in full. According to the complainant he is entitled to get HP termination certificate from the opposite party so as to release the hypothecation endorsement in the RC book of the vehicle. The opposite party contends that the complainant has availed 2 other vehicle loans and he is a chronic defaulter in these accounts. The opposite party relies on Ext. B3 and B4 statement of accounts to substantiate their contention and according to them they have got Banker’s lien over the impugned account.
6. Indisputably, if at all the complainant had availed 2 other loans, he had hypothecated separate vehicles in each loan account. The opposite party is legally entitled to proceed with the recovery proceedings in each and every loan account. Banker’s lien can not be attributed towards any other account. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Jumma Khan III (2012)701 NC held that, “One can not stop the ‘NOC’ in respect of one vehicle even if other agreement is still continuing” .This holding squarely applied in the instant case.
Withholding of HP termination certificate of the complainant’s account amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to issue the same.
7. Point No. ii. Indisputably the opposite party is not empowered to seize the vehicle other than by due process of law.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows.
i. The opposite party shall forthwith issue HP termination
certificate pertaining to the complainant’s vehicle bearing Regn No.
KL-11N4721 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order.
ii. The opposite party shall refrain from possessing the
impugned vehicle by any sort of illegal means.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013.
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Repayment schedulel
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 04-06-2009
A3 : Copy of cheque
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of power of attorney
B2 : Copy of order dt. 20-5-2008
B3 : Copy of statement dt. 15/02/2012
B4 : Copy of statement dt. 15-02-2012
B5 : Loan cum hypothecation agreement
B6 : Consent letter
Depositions:
PW1 : K.P. Abdul Rahman
DW1 : Sojin Kumar U
