IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2013
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 117/2012 (Filed on 29.06.2012)
Between:
Suresh. B,
Ambadi House,
Pallickal. P.O.,
Adoor.
(By Adv. Sabu Thomas) ….. Complainant
And:
1. M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
ICICI Bank Towers,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-51, Rep. by its-
Chief Executive Officer.
2. ICICI Bank,
Edappally Branch,
Kochi, Rep. by its Manager.
3. Manager,
ICICI Bank,
Edappally Branch, Kochi.
4. ICICI Bank,
Branch Pathanamthitta,
Aban Arcade, Pathanamthitta,
Rep. by its Manager.
Addl. 5. Managing Director,
Magma Fincorp Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Magma House,
24-Park Street, Kolkatta.
(By Adv. Mammen Pappy Adeneth) ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The gist of the complainant’s case is that he had availed a loan from 1st opposite party for purchasing a lorry for his livelihood. As per the terms of the hire purchase agreement, the complainant has to pay 60 monthly instalments of Rs.13,975/- each for closing the loan. Accordingly, the complainant had given 60 signed cheques to the opposite parties drawn from the complainant’s account with the Federal Bank, Adoor. Out of the 60 instalments, 59 instalment were paid either through the bank or on direct payment. The 60th cheque is not so far encashed by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them and the opposite parties are bound to cash the said cheque. But they failed to do so and hence the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties dated 16.02.2012 to issue the NOC of the vehicle after encashing the both cheque. In reply to the said notice, opposite parties intimated the complainant that the entire transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties was transferred/assigned to one MFL and the complainant may deal with them. Any other unauthorized transfer or assignment of the complainant’s agreement to any other agencies is void and not binding on the complainant. All the said 59 instalments were received by the opposite parties from the complainant. This shows that the alleged claim in the reply notice of the opposite parties are absolutely baseless. The non- issuance of NOC is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing opposite parties to cash the 60th cheque and cancel the hire purchase agreement and issue the certificates for the same. Complainant also prays for allowing Rs.85,000/- as compensation and costs and to issue an order directing the concerned RTO authorities to cancel the hire purchase endorsement from the RC book of the complainant’s vehicle.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed a common version with the following contentions: Opposite parties challenged the maintainability of this complaint on various grounds. But the grounds urged by the opposite parties are irrelevant in the nature and circumstances of this case and hence we are not dealing with the said objections regarding the maintainability of this complaint. The other main contentions are as follows: Opposite parties admitted the hire purchase transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties. They also admitted the receipt of the complainant’s legal notice dated 16.02.2012 and they have issued a reply to the said notice. In the said reply, they have informed the complainant that the loan transactions of the complainant was assigned in favour of Magma Fincorp Ltd. as per the deed of assignment dated 23.06.2009 and on the basis of the said assignment the complainant and the opposite parties had no relationship in respect of the hire purchase agreement from the said assignment onwards and the complainant is liable to Magma Fincorp Ltd. and the opposite parties are not aware of the position of the loan transaction subsequent to the above said assignment. Opposite parties also directed the complainant to contact and deal with Magma Fincorp Ltd. for the loan in question. In the circumstances, Magma Fincorp is liable for complainant and opposite parties are not liable to the complainant. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Subsequent to the filing of the version of opposite parties 1 to 4, Magma Fincorp Ltd. is impleaded as addl. 5th opposite party by the complainant. But addl. 5th opposite party was declared as exparte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that he had availed a vehicle loan from opposite parties 1 to 4 by executing an hire purchase agreement. As per the said agreement, the complainant has to pay 60 monthly instalments of Rs.13,975/- for each instalment and he had given 60 cheques also to the opposite parties for paying the monthly instalments. All cheques except the last cheque were cleared without any default. The 60th cheque was not encashed so far by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them and there is sufficient credit balance in the complainant’s account for encashing the said cheque. Being so, opposite parties failed to issue the NOC in spite of the complainant’s demand for the same, by saying that the complainant’s loan transactions was assigned to Magna Fincorp Ltd. in the year 2009 and now opposite parties has no connection with the said loan transaction. According to the complainant, the assignment if any is unknown to the complainant and the complainant had never given any authorization to the opposite parties for assigning his loan to any other parties. So the non-issuance of the NOC by opposite parties 1 to 4 is an illegal act and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same as addl. opposite party is a stranger to the complainant.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 5 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the letter dated 19.07.2007 issued by the Manager of the opposite parties Kanjikuzhy Branch in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the letter dated 27.03.2008 issued by the Collection Manager, Pathanamthitta of the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the receipt dated 25.07.2007 for Rs.27,950/- issued from the Pathanamthitta Branch of the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3(a) is the receipt dated 29.03.2008 for Rs.27,950/- issued from the Pathanamthitta Branch of the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3(b) is the receipt dated 30.04.2008 for Rs.13,975/- issued from the Pathanamthitta Branch of the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3(c) is the receipt dated Nil for Rs.13,975/- issued from the Pathanamthitta Branch of the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3(d) is the receipt dated 31.07.2008 for Rs.13,975/- issued from the Pathanamthitta Branch of the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3(e) is the receipt dated 26.11.2008 for Rs.13,975/- issued from the Pathanamthitta Branch of the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A4 is a copy of registered advocate notice dated 16.02.2012 issued for the complainant in the name of the 3rd opposite party. Ext.A5 is the reply dated 16.03.2012 issued by the opposite parties in reply to Ext.A4 registered notice.
9. On the other hand, the contention of opposite parties 1 to 4 is that they have assigned the loan of the complainant to the addl. 5th opposite party as per the deed of assignment dated 23.06.2009 and the 5th addl. opposite party is doing the transactions with the complainant from October 2009 onwards and this fact was also communicated to the complainant. Therefore, they are not aware of any transactions subsequent to the above said assignment and hence they are not liable and responsible to the complainant thereafter.
10. Though opposite parties 1 to 4 raised such a contention in their version they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour for substantiating their contentions. They have not even cross-examined PW1.
11. On the basis of the available materials on record, it is seen that the complainant had availed vehicle loan from opposite parties 1 to 4. According to the complainant, out of the total 60 loan instalments, complainant paid cash for 59 instalments either through his bank account or by direct payment. But opposite parties 1 to 4 failed to adduce any evidence showing that the complainant has not cleared the entire instalments or he is a defaulter in the said loan transaction. Instead, opposite parties 1 to 4 contended in their version that the complainant’s loan was assigned to the addl. 5th opposite party with effect from 2009 September and they are not aware of the current status of the complainant’s loan transactions. But the complainant’s contention is that he is not aware of the said assignment in favour of the addl. 5th opposite party and he never given any authorization or the approval for the said assignment. On the basis of the above said contention of the complainant, opposite parties are bound to adduce evidence in this respect. But they have not adduced any evidence in this respect. Therefore, we are constrained to accept the contention of the complainant that addl. 5th opposite party is a stranger in the above said loan transaction and opposite parties 1 to 4 are responsible to the complainant in connection with loan transaction in question. In the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of opposite parties showing that the complainant is a defaulter in the loan transaction and the complainant’s loan transaction is with addl. 5th opposite party w.e.f 2009 September onwards, we are constrained to accept complainant’s claim that he is not a defaulter in the loan transaction except the 60th instalment and the non-issuance of the NOC is an unfair trade practice and is a deficiency in service. Therefore, we find that this complaint is allowable.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to cash the 60th cheque of the complainant and to issue the NOC to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize a total amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) from opposite parties 1 to 4 with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount. In the event of non issuance of NOC by the opposite parties, complainant is allowed to approach the concerned transport authority with this order, along with the statement of account of the complainant from Federal Bank, Adoor and other relevant documents showing that the complainant had cleared all instalments, for canceling the hire purchase endorsement from the RC Book of the complainant’s vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-26/3040 and in that event the concerned RTO authority can cancel the hire purchase endorsement from the RC Book in question.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of October, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : B. Suresh
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Letter dated 19.07.2007 issued by the Manager of the opposite
parties Kanjikuzhy Branch in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Letter dated 27.03.2008 issued by the Collection Manager,
Pathanamthitta of the opposite parties in the name of the
complainant.
A3 series (A3 to A3(e) : Receipts.
A4 : Registered advocate notice dated 16.02.2012 issued by the
complainant in the name of 3rd opposite party.
A5 : Reply notice dated 16.03.2012 issued by the opposite parties.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Suresh. B, Ambadi House, Pallickal. P.O., Adoor.
(2) Chief Executive Officer, M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Corporate Office,
ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-51.
(3) Manager, ICICI Bank, Edappally Branch, Kochi.
(4) Manager, ICICI Bank, Aban Arcade, Pathanamthitta.
(5) Managing Director, Magma Fincorp Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Magma House, 24-Park Street, Kolkatta.
(6) The Stock File.
