Haryana

StateCommission

A/515/2017

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARTAP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

13 May 2024

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:18.04.2017

                Date of final hearing: 13.05.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement: 14.05.2024

 

 

First Appeal No.515 of 2017

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Branch Gohana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat.

2.      The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Branch Karnal, District Karnal, Haryana.

Through Munish Sharma, Authorized person, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., SCO 153-155, Sector-C, Chandigarh.

.….Appellants.

 

Through Counsel Shri P.M. Goyal, Advocate

 

Versus

 

 

Partap Singh son of Sawaraj Singh, R/o Kot Mohalla, Ward No.5, Ganaur, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonipat.

….Respondent.

 

Through counsel Shri Ajay Ghanghas, Advocate

 

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri P.M. Goyal, counsel for the appellants.

                   Shri Ajay Ghanghas, counsel for respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

S. C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

 

 

                   Delay of 05 days in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.                Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 06.03.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2016, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (now ‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties (‘OPs’) were directed as under:-

“Accordingly, in the absence of evidence regarding any auction proceedings or sale proceeds, we assess the value of the tractor to the tune of Rs.3 lacs and it is directed to the respondents to deduct the payment of balance installments as per their agreement from the assessed amount of Rs.3 lacs and to pay the balance amount to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.”

 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint filed before learned District Commission are that complainant alleging himself to be owner of Tractor Sonalika bearing No.HR42C/0741 and the said vehicle was got financed from the OPs in the month of October, 2013 for a sum of Rs.3,06,314/-. The said financed amount was to be repaid by the complainant in 48 installments i.e. with effect from 02.10.2013 to 20.09.2017. It was alleged that the complainant paid 25 installments to the OPs. The complainant was also ready to pay all the balance installments within the stipulated period by 20.09.2017. It was further alleged that on 06.02.2016 at about 5 am, the OPs took away the tractor of the complainant illegally, forcibly and without any intimation or notice to the complainant, whereas they have no right to do so. Thereafter, complainant has requested the Ops to release his tractor, but of no use and this wrongful act of the OPs have caused unnecessary mental agony & harassment to the complainant. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and filed its written version by submitting therein that the time of installment was settled between the parties w.e.f. 20.10.2013 to 20.9.2017. However, the complainant has paid 25 installments to the respondents, but the complainant did not pay any installments in time within the stipulated period. Every installment was paid after due date and after paying many visits by the officials of the OPs at the house of the complainant. It was further submitted that on 14.12.2015 the complainant had paid his last installment and thereafter he did not pay even a single penny to the OPs. It was further submitted that as per the agreement executed between the parties, the respondents re-possessed the tractor on 06.02.2016 and notice was issued on 12.02.2016 to the complainant for making payment of the said vehicle amounting to Rs.2,41,106/- within 7 days, but the complainant did not pay a single penny to the OPs and thereafter, the OPs obtained sale order from the arbitrator and has sold the vehicle after obtaining approval from National Head. It was further submitted that the OPs have acted as per the agreement executed between the parties. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission accepted the complaint of complainant and issued directions as mentioned above in 2^nd para (Supra).

5.                Aggrieved from the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, OPs-appellants have preferred the present appeal for setting aside the impugned order by accepting the present appeal.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. P.M. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance, contents of the appeal has also been properly perused and examined.

7.                As per the contentions of appellants-OPs, the agreement was executed between the parties and appellants-OPs re-possessed the tractor on 06.02.2016. Notice was issued on 12.2.2016 to the respondent-complainant for making payment of the said vehicle amounting to Rs.2,41,106/- within 7 days, but he did not pay a single penny to the appellants-OPs. Thereafter, appellants obtained sale order from the arbitrator and have sold the vehicle after obtaining approval from National Head. Further, as per appellants-OPs, they have acted as per the agreement executed between the parties and there is no deficiency in service on their part. On the other hand, as per respondent-complainant, the appellants-OPs wrongly, illegally, forcibly, without any intimation or notice have taken away the financed vehicle No. HR42C/0741 on 06.02.2016 and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on their part.

8.                It is an admitted fact that the respondent-complainant was owner of Tractor Sonalika bearing No.HR42C/0741 and the said vehicle was got financed from the present-appellants-OPs in the month of October, 2013 for a sum of Rs.3,06,314/-. It is also an admitted fact that the said financed amount was to be repaid by the respondent-complainant in 48 installments i.e. with effect from 02.10.2013 to 20.09.2017 and respondent-complainant paid 25 installments to the appellants-OPs. It is also an admitted fact that the agreement was also executed between the parties and as per that agreement, the appellants-OPs can re-possess the tractor and the same was re-possessed on 06.02.2016. It is also an admitted fact that thereafter, the appellants-OPs obtained sale order from the arbitrator and have sold the vehicle after obtaining approval from National Head.

9.               After going through the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, it is observed that it is nowhere mentioned by the appellants-OPs that on which date, sale of the tractor was conducted. Neither they have placed on record any auction record nor they have furnished any sale proceedings of the tractor in question. Arbitrator, Jalandhar passed the order dated 15.02.2016, but it is nowhere mentioned by the OPs that as to how for much amount the vehicle was sold and to whom it was sold. Moreover, auction proceedings are also not placed on record by the appellants-OPs. On the other hand, as per respondent-complainant as well as admitted by the appellants-OPs that he had paid 25 installments, whereas total 48 installments were to be paid by him. Thus, 23 installments were paid by the respondent-complainant cannot be ignored and appellants-OPs cannot retain the entire amount of sale proceeds/assessed amount particularly when the respondent-complainant had already paid 25 installments and remaining 23 installments were to be paid by him. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence regarding any auction proceedings or sale proceeds, learned District Commission rightly assessed the value of the tractor to the tune of Rs.3 lacs and directed the appellants-OPs to deduct the payment of balance installments as per their agreement from the assessed amount of Rs.3 lacs and to pay the balance amount to the respondent-complainant.

10.              In view of the above observations and discussion, learned District Commission rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law, and therefore, there is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal is without merits and thus, stands dismissed.

11.              Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt, identification and as per rules.

12.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 14^th May, 2024                                                                                                

                                                                                                            S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 R.K