NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1828/2019

H.K. SAVITHRAMMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

OFFICE IN CHARGE INDUSIND BANK - Opp.Party(s)

MS. ANUBHA AGRAWAL (AMICUS CURIAE)

12 Mar 2020

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1828 OF 2019
 
(Against the Order dated 07/06/2019 in Appeal No. 910/2018 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. H.K. SAVITHRAMMA
D/O. LATE T KALAJAVARAIAH, R/AT NO. 33A, 5TH CROSS, LANAPRIYA ABODES KENCHENAHALLI POST, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560098
KARNATAKA
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. OFFICE IN CHARGE INDUSIND BANK
OFFICE AT NO. 87, 2ND FLOOR, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560019
KARNATAKA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent :

Dated : 12 Mar 2020
ORDER

JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The Complainant/Petitioner took a car loan of ₹1,30,000/- from the Respondent Indusind Bank.  The loan was repaid on 25.01.2012 by making payment of ₹1,14,000/- in terms of one time settlement between the parties.  The grievance of the Complainant/Petitioner is that despite she having repaid the loan,

-2-

the requisite loan clearance certificate was not issued to her by the Bank, as a result of which she could not sell the car.  This is also the case of the Petitioner that despite she having repaid the entire loan in terms of the settlement, a demand of ₹12,150/- was raised by the Respondent Bank on 09.03.2015.  The Complainant, thereafter, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking compensation etc.

2.      The Respondent did not file any written version to the Consumer Complaint.  The District Forum vide its order dated 16.05.2018 directed the Respondent to pay a sum of ₹10,000/- as litigation expenses to the Complainant.  No compensation was, however, awarded to her.

3.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner/Complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an Appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 07.06.2019, the State Commission also awarded compensation quantified at ₹5,000/- to the Complainant/Petitioner.  Being still dissatisfied with this, the Complainant is before this Commission.

4.      The only question involved in this Petition is as to whether the compensation awarded by the State Commission to the

-3-

Petitioner/Complainant is adequate or not.  The learned Amicus Curiae submits that though the loan was repaid on 25.01.2012, the requisite clearance certificate came to be issued to the Complainant only on 01.02.2018.  Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant/Petitioner on account of the Respondent having not issued the requisite clearance certificate for years together, the Respondent is directed to pay a sum of ₹40,000/- as compensation to the Complainant in addition to the cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum.  The payment in terms of this order shall be made within eight weeks from today.

5.      The Revision Petition stands disposed of.

 
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.