A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

HYDERABAD.

FA  797/2006  against C.C. 328/2005, Dist. Forum, Rajahmundry

Between:

Kopusetti Bhanu Prasad

S/o. K. Satyam

Age: 41 years,

D.No. 4- 422, K. K. Nagar

Dowleswaram

Rajahmundry.                                             ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant.

                                                                    And

1).  ICICI Bank

Rep. by its Collection Manager

46-22, Karri Surireddy Plaza

Danavaipeta

Rajahmundry

2)  Area Collection Manager

ICICI Bank, Siripuram Post

CBM Compound

Visakapatnam

3)  Regional Collection Manager

ICICI Bank, Begumpet,

Hyderabad.                                                           ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                 O.Ps.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          Mr. P. Gopala Krishna

Counsel for the Resp:                                  M/s. Hari & Associates

                HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

              SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

&

                                 SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE  FIRST DAY OF JULY  TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

          Aggrieved by the order of the Dist. Forum  granting inadequate compensation, the complainant preferred this appeal.

2)                 The case of the complainant in brief is that respondent bank issued  a  sale notice for Bajaj two wheeler motor cycle bearing No.  AP 5AJ 7583. He participated in the auction,  became the highest bidder for Rs. 34,000/-.  Pursuant to the purchase a sale letter Dt. 21.3.2005 was issued.   Later the vehicle was handed over to him  with a request to approach the bank after three days for receiving the documents  however,  the bank  did not return the documents on one ground or the other.   He borrowed amounts from his friends and relatives at  an exorbitant rate of interest @ 24% p.a. for its purchase.    He could not  use the motor cycle to attend to his duties as the documents of the motor cycle were not returned.   He incurred loss of Rs. 50,000/-as he could not attend to his job work.  He got the motor cycle repaired by spending an amount of Rs. 5,000/-.   Therefore, he filed the complaint for returning the original documents of the motor cycle, besides Rs. 50,000/- towards loss incurred by him, Rs. 5,000/- towards repairing charges, and Rs. 1 lakh towards damages with costs.

3)                 The respondent bank did not choose to contest despite receipt of notice,  and therefore it was set-exparte. 

4)                 The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked.  

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  the  bank was negligent  in not handing over the documents of the motor cycle and therefore directed to return the documents besides  Rs. 3,000/- as damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.

6)                 Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that  the Dist. Forum erred in  not awarding damages  and other amounts claimed  to a tune of  Rs. 1,60,000/- and  prayed that the said amount be awarded. 

7)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to various amounts  claimed?

8)                 It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased Bajaj motor cycle for Rs. 34,000/- on 21.3.2005 from the respondent bank in an auction  conducted by it.  The complainant  issued a  legal notice on 4.6.2005 directing the bank to handover the documents of the motor cycle besides compensation and costs,  when it was postponing  on one ground or the other.   

9)                 The respondent bank did not give any reply either to the notice nor responded to the notice on the complaint filed before the Dist. Forum.   The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record directed the bank to return the documents of motor cycle in order to enable him to ply the vehicle.  The complainant though alleged that he could not attend to his job  and therefore sustained a loss of Rs. 50,000/- he could not file any document in order to substantiate the said contention in the sense that he got a job on hand and he could not attend to it,  and therefore sustained loss.   Equally, he did not file any document to show that the vehicle needed repairs.   He did not file any estimate from any of the mechanics to show that an amount of Rs. 5,000/-   would be incurred for getting it   repaired.   

The claim that he was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony is exorbitant,  made without any substance.   No doubt the bank has been negligent in not handing over the documents of the motor cycle in order to enable the complainant to run the motor cycle.   The very purpose of purchasing the motor cycle from the respondent bank is defeated.   The bank did not choose to respond either to the legal notice or to the noticed issued by the Dist. Forum obviously  it has no defence nor explanation to offer.    This shows callousness on the part of the bank.  It is not known as to why the bank has been  reluctant to return the documents.  It would undoubtedly disclose that it was negligent in discharging its duties.    The respondent bank did not choose to contest even in this appeal showing their reluctance to comply the order.     

10)              At the cost of repetition, we may state that the complainant could not ply the motor cycle and the very purpose of purchase is defeated.  In the circumstances the value of the motor cycle should be the adequate compensation that could be awarded to the complainant as the complainant could not ply the same due to the adamant  attitude of the bank.  Obviously the vehicle would have become useless as four years have elapsed from the date of its purchase.   Necessarily, the complainant is entitled to at least the value of the vehicle towards damages as the bank has benefited with the amount and in the process the complainant has sustained loss,  therefore, he  had to be compensated equally.   It has to pay damages which we quantify  at  Rs. 10,000/-  @  Rs. 2,000/- per year.  This we feel adequate and moderate. 

11)              In the result the appeal is allowed in part  modifying the order of the Dist. Forum  directing the respondent bank to pay an amount of Rs. 34,000/- the value of the vehicle which was purchased by the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of purchase viz., 21.3.2005 till the date of payment together with damages of Rs.  10,000/-.   The complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000/- in this appeal.  Time for compliance four weeks.

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

3)           _________________________________

 MEMBER

                                                         Dt.     01. 07.  2009.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”