<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 27.03.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.801/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> Sri.Mahaboob,<br /> S/o Musha Sab,<br /> Resident of No.159 (Old No.14), Ellamma Temple Road,<br /> Nagavarapalya,<br /> C.V.Raman Nagar Post,<br /> Near Ellamma Temple,<br /> Bangalore – 560 093.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Babu Abel.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY<br /> <br /> M/s. HDFC Bank,<br /> Used Car Loan Department,<br /> Retail Asset Division,<br /> 548/D, 1st Floor,<br /> Maruthi Mansion, CMH Road,<br /> Indiranagar,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Mahabaleshwar G.C<br /> <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 pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to issue a letter for cancellation of hypothecation made in the R.C book with respect to vehicle No.KA-03-MB-7064 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 loan of Rs.2,60,000/- under the used car loan scheme from OP repayable in 36 EMI commencing from 07.02.2008 at the rate of Rs.9,300/- till 07.01.2011. Though complainant has given the post dated EMI cheques, OP didn’t release the loan which was sanctioned to him. Complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP issued the legal notice on 07.02.2008 calling upon OP not to present the first instalment cheque. With all that OP presented the same. When the said cheque was not honored OP threatened the complainant that his name will be listed in defaulters list. OP according to its own convenience returned the ECS facility twice and debited Rs.50/- each in the account of the complainant. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file the complaint. Though complainant made repeated requests and demands to OP to cancel the hypothecation entry made in the RC book with respect to the said loan, it failed. Thus he felt deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that it has released and disbursed Rs.2,60,000/- loan under the used Car loan scheme. As per the request of the complainant the said amount is disbursed in favour of Apnacar.com Pvt Ltd., from whom complainant purchased the said vehicle. OP has ascertained that complainant received the cheque of the said amount from Apnacar’s on 29.01.2008. When he has raised the vehicle loan naturally entry will be made in the RC book with regard to hypothecation of the said vehicle. When OP has released the loan it has got a right to present the cheque to encash EMI, unfortunately it bounced. Under such circumstances OP has got a right to charge the cheque bounce charges. The other allegations of the complainant are all false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the loan of Rs.2,60,000/- from OP under the used Car loan scheme repayable in EMI from 07.02.2008. According to the complainant the said amount is not released to him though it is sanctioned. But according to OP as per the request of the complainant only the said loan was disbursed in favour of Apnacar.com Pvt Ltd., from whom complainant purchased the Car. Complainant authorized OP to release the said amount in favour of Apnacar.com. Document to that effect is produced. Under such circumstances the allegations of the complainant that OP has not released the loan doesn’t appears to be fair.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that though OP has not released the loan it presented the ECS cheques for encashment though complainant directed the OP not to present the same. The fact that the said cheque bounced not once but twice is also not at dispute. When the cheque is bounced naturally OP has got a right to collect the cheque return charges. That act of the OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service. When complainant became the defaulter in not paying even the first instalment, there is nothing wrong on the part of the OP in intimating him that if he fails to pay the instalment, his name will be listed in defaulters list. So all the allegation of the complainant appears to be baseless. When complainant himself is a defaulter he can’t allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. As long as complainant kept the loan in due he is not entitled for the relief of a letter for cancellation of the hypothecation made in the RC book pertaining to the said vehicle KA-03-MB-7064. If the complainant repays the entire loan amount as per the terms of the agreement OP will issue such kind of letter for the deletion of the hypothecation entry. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant he can’t seek for the compensation against the OP alleging deficiency in service that too when there is no proof of repayment of entire loan with interest.<br /> <br /> 9. We have closely scrutinized both oral and documentary evidence and the pleadings of the parties, in our considered view complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is not entitled for either of the relief. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<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 24th day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />