IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 31st day of October, 2015
Filed on 25.11.2014
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.315/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Shajeed M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Abdu Nivas Represented by its authorized Signatory Thuravoor P.O. Branch Manager, Sanal
Cherthala, Alappuzha Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
C.V. Collection, First Floor
Vallanattu Building, Near Seematti
M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 035
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The complainant had taken a loan for Rs.8,55,536/- from the opposite party for the purchase of a Tipper Lorry. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, complainant had to repay the amount in 48 equated monthly installments ie. Rs.20,100/- per month. Complainant committed default in remitting the 2 EMI and opposite party had forcibly taken the Tipper Lorry from the complainant. Opposite party has no right to take the vehicle from the complainant before the expiry of the loan period. Hence the complaint is filed directing the opposite party to return the vehicle along with compensation.
2. Along with the complaint, complainant has filed an application restraining the opposite party from selling the vehicle till the disposal of the complaint. After hearing the matter in detail IA allowed and opposite party directed not to proceed anything against the complainant from selling the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 32 D74 owned by the complainant till the disposal of the complaint. Opposite party filed petition for vacating the interim order as IA/No.69/2015. According to the opposite party the vehicle was repossessed by the Advocate Commissioner after availing Police Assistance from Kuthiathode Police by due process of law on 17.7.2014 in pursuance to the order dated 23.6.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in A-No.3850/14. The said order is produced by the opposite party. The opposite party further stated that complainant referred A-No.5608/14 in A-3850/14 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and after hearing the matter, Hon’ble High Court of Madras dismissed the application referred by the complainant by order dated 19.11.2014. The said order also produced by the opposite party in support of his contention. By the said order, Hon’ble High Court of Madras stated that, “it would not be desirable to set aside the order made in the application and consequently return the vehicle to the borrower. It is open to the borrower to approach the bank for amicable settlement.” In the instant case complainant filed the IA/No.50/2015 before the Forum suppressing the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in A-No.5608/14 dated 19.11.2014. Hence the order in IA/No.50/15 is vacated. It is pertinent to notice that while the petition A-No.5608/2014 in A-No.3850/2014 was considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in para 5 of the said order stated that, “What would be exact amount due and payable as to be adjudicated only in the Arbitral Proceedings.” In the Arbitration Proceedings also the complainant contested the matter and award was passed on 25.3.2015. In the circumstances, nothing remains to be adjudicated in between the parties, since the complainant had already availed an opportunity to agitate the matter before the Arbitrator. In the circumstances stated above, this Forum finds that there is no merit in the original petition and hence the complaint is dismissed.
In the result complaint dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:- Nil
// True Copy // By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
