Date of Filing: 18.11.2009
Date of Order: 17.02.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011
PRESENT
Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.
Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.
COMPLAINT NO: 2690 OF 2009
N.M. Shivaprakash
S/o. N. Muniswamy Gowda
R/at No.7, II A Main Road
II Block, Rajajinagar
Bangalore 560 010 Complainant
V/S
M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd.
Having its State Office at IndusInd House
No. 87, II Floor, Bull Temple Road
Basavangudi, Bangalore 560 019 Opposite Party
ORDER
By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The facts of the case are that complainant had approached opposite party for vehicle loan and Rs. 16,00,000/- was sanctioned for two vehicles. He was not in a position to run the vehicle as such he surrendered both the vehicles to the opposite party on 02.05.2008 itself. Meanwhile the complainant paid Rs. 80,000/- on 17.03.2008 and Rs. 50,000/- on 30.04.2008. Some of the customers requested the complainant to sell the vehicles at the rate of Rs. 9,05,000/- per vehicle. Opposite party got issued two notices to the complainant on 26.05.2005 calling upon the complainant to pay balance amount. Complainant did not reply to the notices due to his ill health. The complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages causing deficiency in service.
2. Opposite party has filed defence version stating that the complainant surrendered the vehicles to opposite party since there was huge due. The opposite party intended to sale the vehicles in public auction. Authorized valuator was appointed for valuation. The vehicles were sold in public auction above the value of the valuation report. The amounts realized were given credit to the account of the complainant. There is still due of loan from the complainant. In pursuance of clause 23 of the loan agreement the Arbitration proceeding is initiated at Chennai. Complainant got filed objections to the before the arbitrator. Arbitration application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act is also filed before the civil court. The complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.
3. Arguments are heard.
4. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
REASONS
5. It is very unfortunate that complainant has filed a frivolous and baseless complaint against opposite party even though such type complaint is not maintainable before consumer forum. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. Such kind of complaints shall have to be rejected out with cost. Admittedly, the complainant himself has surrendered vehicles to opposite party since he was unable to pay the loan. The opposite party appointed the valuator. On the basis of report of the valuator two vehicles were sold in public auction and the amount so realized was adjusted to the loan account of the complainant. The complainant is still due of more than Rs. 5,00,000/- under the two loan accounts to the opposite party. As per the terms of loan agreement the opposite party has taken the matter before the arbitrator and claim petition had been submitted under G.R. No. 33/2009 and G.R. No. 34/2009 at Chennai. The matter is pending before Arbitrator at Chennai. The complainant has appeared before Arbitrator and filed his objections there. Another Arbitration proceeding is pending under section 9 of the Arbitration Act in AA No. 847/2009 before the Civil Court, Bangalore. So under these circumstances when the matter is already seized by the arbitration proceedings and arbitration proceeding is pending for consideration at this stage the complainant without any basis or cause of action has filed this complaint against the opposite party bank. This compliant is not only baseless but it is also frivolous. On the face of it complaint is not maintainable. Where is the question of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party bank. Nothing has been alleged and proved by the complainant what is the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite party bank. The complainant has to abide by the arbitration award since he has already appeared before arbitrator and filed his objections. At this stage the futile exercise of the complainant in approaching this forum is not proper. This type of complaint shall not be brought to the consumer forum by the learned advocates. They must properly guide their clients and give proper and legal advice. But in this case unfortunately the complainant has filed this complaint before this forum though it is not maintainable either on its facts or in law. Therefore, taking into consideration of facts of the case I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
6. The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011.
Order accordingly,
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER MEMBER
