Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1434/2005

Radha Krishan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. ABN Amro Bank - Opp.Party(s)

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1434/05                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Radha Krishan Sharma,

S/o Sh. Ram Biwas Sharma,

R/o 117, Masjid Moth, New Delhi-110049

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

ABN Amro Bank,

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001

Through its Branch Manager

 

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

 

        The complainant got financed a car by loan from OP bank in Nov.2001. He was disbursed less than he sanction loan of Rs.2,07,988/- to the dealer which, did not hand over the documents of car like R/C etc, for few months and complainant was deprived of use of car legally. It is alleged that OP has also assured the insurance amount of Rs.8,446/- for first year, but which it failed to pay, and ultimately dealer released the documents on 11^th March 2002 after complainant himself paying the insurance.

         It is alleged that he regularly paid the EMIs fixed for the loan, despite that payment made. It is alleged that suddenly on 20^th August 2002, when the installment cheque was cleared from the Complainants bank in the morning. Same evening some musclemen representing OP bank, forcibly snatched the van. She had never sent any information or notice to the complainant. He sent the fax and request to release the vehicle as all payments were clear. It is alleged that in a letter dated 03.09.02 sent clandestinely, bank claimed to have sold the van for a low amount, without sending any notice of sale. It is alleged that though bank claimed to have sold the vehicle, if actually was plied by it, as he received number of traffic challans in his name. Therefore this complaint.

        The OP in its reply without any documentary evidence or record of giving notice of repossession or statement of accounts to show default in installments till date of seizing, or any documents to show notice before sale given to complainant, denied every allegation in the complaint, and blamed the complainant for default and justified its actions. It also failed to file any affidavit of evidence.

        In the light of above facts of general denial by OP, without an iota of evidence, we have considered the complaint in the light of unrebutted evidence of complaint. He has also relied on number of case law from Supreme Court, High Court and National Consumer in cases cited as  II(1991)CPJ 344, Ravindra Kumar Vs. Managing Director vide C.D no.41 of 1990 dated 24.01.1991 by Orissa SCDRC, 100(2002)  Delhi Law times 581 (DB) Delhi High Court, Dr. Amitabh Verma Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors vide writ Petition no.761/2002 dated 23.10.02, 2003(69) DRj, 2003(9) (DB) Delhi High Court in Crl. W. No.525/2003 in Bhagya Products pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Police dated 29.05.03, III(2007) SLT1, SC, in ICICI Bank Ltd. V.s Prakash Kaur dated 26.02.07 to highlight the legal position that a bank cannot adopt to such musclemen methods to repossessed the vehicle even if there is a default. In this case, on other hand, Complainant has brought on record bank statement that he has regularly paid every installment from date of purchase till the date of repossession, by musclemen. He has deposed on affidavit that bank dishonored only Rs.1,98,498/- as against sanction loan of Rs.2,07,988/- as per Para of the affidavit.

        The Complainant also deposed that he was forced to pay two installments of total installments, despite arrangement by OP (Para 11 of affidavit), as a result he got paper of vehicle after many months and he could not bring the on road for use. Bank charged interest on money not disbursed. He deposed that on 20.08.02, after the installment of Oct. 2002 was cleared, the vehicle was seized, and there have been no default earlier, and that no notice of possession or notice before sale nor given. He deposed that though in a letter of 03.09.02, the OP claim to have sold the vehicle, yet challan in his name came for traffic violation after this date, which caused him great anxiety and mental agony. The OP has failed to rebut this evidence, by any Court evidence.

        In the circumstances, we accept the case of complainant in tota and hold that OP acted unfairly and illegally with complainant and committed number of deficiencies and was imperfect in rendering services to the complainant to the hilt and caused him great financial loss and hurt him mentally by its outrageous behavior.

        After considering the entire facts and circumstances, we find that complainant has not been able to use the vehicle for its full life and despite his regular payments & capacity to pay was deprived of his valuable money paid as well as vehicle which was disposed off and yet loan remained outstanding. He was given no opportunity to claim back the vehicle by showing no default or paying, if anything was due. The OP has acted mala fide.

        In the circumstances, we award on net compensation of Rs.4 lakh, for all the deficiency put together and mental agony, harassment and deficiency to compensate the complainant for depriving use of vehicle, and to compensate him for loss of value of money. We also award litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- for this litigation without justifying its actions on complainant in last 10  years till now.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

Pronounced in open Court on 27.03.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER