Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/152/2016

ram Mehar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Sharma

29 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint no.: 152 of 2016

                                                      Date of Institution           : 18.07.2016

                                                                  Date of order                   : 29.07.2024

 

Ram Mehar son of Sh. Attar Singh R/o village Chang, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.         M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Branch Office HUDA City Centre, Bhiwani.

 

2.         M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Branch Office, Green Square Market, Hisar.

 

3.         MG Motors, Hisar Road, Rohtak.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:        Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

Present:-          Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                        OP No.3 exparte vide order dated 03.10.2016.

                       

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of this case are that complainant purchased a vehicle TATA Super ACE bearing regn. no.HR-61B-6847 for earning his livelihood with the aid of finance of Rs.4.00 lacs from OPs No.1 & 2 after depositing Rs.1,62,400/- and completing other formalities. It is submitted that complainant continued to deposit Rs.12,850/- monthly installments but he could not deposit the instalments after February 2014 as the vehicle met with an accident in Sonepat and it was left with OP No.3 for repairs and for getting insurance claim from OPs No.1 & 2. It is alleged that he paid Rs.38,000/- to the OP No.3 at the instance of other OPs and the vehcle was delivered to him about after three months. It is alleged that immediately after delivering of the vehicle, two muscleman came at the house of complainant and took away the vehicle from his possession without any paper formalitiy in this regard as well no statement of account was produced to it nor given any notice qua auctioning the vehicle. It is alleged that exparte arbitration award was taken by OPs which too without issuing any notice to him and heard before disposal for such proceedings. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part resulting into monetary loss besides mental and physical harassement.  In the end, prayer has been made to direct the Ops to handover the vehicle to the complainant or to pay Rs.3.00 lac, and to pay Rs.2.00 lac on account of compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, complaint being false and frivolous, complaint bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, locus standi and cause of action.  On merits,  it is submitted that complainant got financned the vehicle for Rs.4.00 lac vide agreement dated 09.08.2013 and he has to repay the said loan amount alongwith interest and other charges in 48 monthly equal installments, which total valued comes to Rs.5,62,640/-. It is denied that any blank paper/agreement was got signed from complainant. It is submitted that Ram Kishan S/o Roop Chand R/o VPO Chang, Bhiwani deliberately and willfully stood as co-borrower to this loan account.  It is admitted that complainant paid installments regularly till February 2014. It is denied that any damaged claim of this vehicle had been received from insurance company. It is also denied that answering Ops ever asked complainant to pay Rs.38,000/- to OP No.3.  It is submitted that complainant himself surrendered the financed vehicle to the bank under affidavit in favour of OP bank and before auctioning the vehicle, proper assessment and valuation of the vehicle was done. It is submitted that after getting possession of the vehicle, OP bank issued legal notice dated 10.10.2014 to complainant before selling of the vehicle as well as his co-borrower for making payment of the loan amount but they did not show any promptness rather kept mum.  It is submitted that Arbitratron award was passed against complainant and his co-borrower for an amount of Rs.2,27,241/- alongwith interest @ 18% from 04.06.2015 till its realization and Rs.3500/- as cost of litigation and execution thereof was also pending before the Court of Hon’ble Addil District Judge, Bhiwani.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on their part rather prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs and complainant may be directed to clear the dues of the OP bank.

3.                     In evidence of complainant, documents Annexure C-1  to Annexure C-19 were tendered and closed the evidence on 11.01.2018.

4.                     On the other side,  learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 tendered in evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-10 and closed the evidence on 28.02.2019.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record minutely. Written submission filed on behalf of complainant and also placed reliance on a case law Royal Automobiles Vs. Raj Kumar decided in 2001.  Also written arguments filed on behalf of OPs. Ld. counsel for Ops placed reliance on a case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, New Delhi, tilted Navneet Jha Vs. Magma Sharachi Finance Ltd. R.P. No.1780 of 2014 decided on 01.03.2021.  We have carefully gone through the above referred case law.

6.                     As per documents Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-13, complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.118,920/- with OPs as installments towards the loan amount and vide documents Annexure C-14 to Annexure C-18, complainant has deposited Rs.38,000/- with OP No.3 as repair charges. Admittedly, at the time of taking the loan amount of Rs.4.00 lac, a sum of Rs.1,62,640/- was deposited by complainat with the OPs No.1 & 2 as margin money on the financed amount. During the course of arguments, learned counsels from both sides were asked to tell about IDV of the vehicle at the relevant point of time when it was surrendered or allegedly forcibly taken.  In response to that, learned counsel for OP has apprised to the Commission that IDV of the vehicle was Rs.4,37,950/-, to which complainant’s counsel has also agreed.

7.                     As discussed above, complainant has already deposited Rs.3,19,560/- with the OP Bank. Admittedly, the OP insurance company put the vehicle on auction but did not disclose as to how much amount they have received of the vehicle from putting it into auction. As per policy document taken on record during the course of arguments, reveals IDV of the vehicle as Rs.4,37,950/-, therefore, after putting the vehicle on auction at a lowest price, OP bank must have gained a handsome price of the vehicle, which we assess  at Rs.3,80,000/-. Thus the complainant paid the OP bank Rs.3,19,560/- + Rs.3,80,000/- = Rs.6,99,560/-. 

8.                     The complainant was at liability towards loan agreement value to the tune of Rs.5,62,640/-, however, he paid Rs.6,99,560/- to the OP bank, therefore, now the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.1,36,920/- from the OP bank. In totality of the facts and circumstnaces of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the OP bank was negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant which must have caused him financial loss as well mental and physical harassment. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and and OPs No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)        To refund Rs.1,36,920/- (Rs. One lac thirty six thousand nine hundred twenty) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its actual realization.

(ii)       To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rs. Eleven thousand) as litigation expenses.

                                                                       

                        In case of default, the OPs No.1 & 2 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 29.07.2024.