BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.854-13

Date of Institution:26-12-2013

Date of Decision:17-03-2015  

Balwinder Singh son of S.Wassan Singh, resident of VPO Bal Kalan, Tehsil & District Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab National Bank, SME Branch, Mall Road, Amritsar, through its Chief Manager.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rajinder Joshi, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.Ravi B.Mahajan, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Balwinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he availed the loan facility from Opposite Party to the tune of Rs.17,65,000/- on 23.06.2010 and at that time, various printed forms, papers, stamp papers while in blank were got signed from the complainant and blank signed cheques were also obtained from the complainant. Complainant alleges that with the said financed amount, the complainant purchased truck No.PB-02-BJ-9713 of Model 2010 of Ashok Layland to ply the same and earn his livelihood. The complainant paid the regular installments to the Opposite Party  till 23.3.2012. However, later on due to some financial crises, he could not pay the further installments and the Opposite Party Bank repossessed the vehicle on 18.7.2012 and fixed the sale price of the said truck as Rs.11.5 lacs and stated to put it to auction/ sale. The complainant wrote  a letter to the Opposite Party that the fixed price made by the Opposite Party is quite low as the truck was purchased in June/ July, 2010 and the same was within two years at that time and as such, even as per list of the Insurance Company, depreciation value for the vehicle upto three years is 20%. But no heed was given to the said request of the complainant. Even at that time, the complainant also offered to adjust the account with adjustment of the sale price of the truck in the loan account, but the Opposite Party delayed the matter for the reasons best known to them and on the other hand, started misusing the blank signed cheques by presenting the same in the bank with a view to harass the complainant and to burden him with unnecessary misc. amounts,  whereas he is already facing financial crisis for which he surrendered the vehicle and requested to sell the truck at market price. That so much so, now it has transpired that the officials of the Opposite Party Bank for their personal benefit, got some other assessments made and are going to sell the truck for meager amount of less than Rs. 5.4 lacs approximately and still claiming the balance amount in the account from the complainant, to which they are not entitled for and are charging interest and miscellaneous  expenses in the account without any basis.  The complainant visited the Opposite Party to return back his blank signed cheques and clear the account and not to harass him and not to demand any amounts from him and to remove his name from CIBIL, as the default is on the part of the Opposite Party Bank and not on the part of the complainant, but the Opposite Party flatly refused to listen to the requests of the complainant.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to close and settle the account and not to raise any demand of amount from the complainant; not to misuse further blank signed cheques of the complainant and to return and hand over the same to the complainant immediately.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that at the time of sanction of the loan facility, the documents of security were duly filled in and then read over and explained to the complainant and he admitting the contents and implications of said security documents signed and executed the same in favour of the Opposite Party Bank and as such, the plea taken by the complainant does not lie in his mouth. As far as cheques are concerned, the same are duly issued by the complainant against legal debt and liability and he can not  wriggle out from his liability by taking such plea. However, any payment made was duly credited in the account and any amount of interest and charges accrued was duly debited in the account. The plea of the financial crises is false and baseless and has nothing to do with the matter as the complainant is liable to pay the amount outstanding in the account alongwith upto date interest and charges accrued from time to time as per the norms of the bank. The account was running highly irregular and in this regard, a  demand notice dated 30.4.2012 was duly served upon the complainant, but he failed to pay the outstanding amount and as such, the truck was validly and legally repossessed by the bank as per seizure notice/ possession-cum- sale notice dated 6.6.2012. After that the reserved price of the truck was fixed as Rs.11.5 lacs and public notice was issued for auction of the truck for Rs.11.5 lacs with EMD Rs.1.15 lac in two leading news papers Jagbani and  Indian Express on 25.8.2012 and auction was held on 10.9.2012, but the auction could not succeed as no bidder put any bid and as such, same could not be sold in auction and intimation in this regard was given to the complainant vide letter dated 11.9.2012. There is no bad intention on the part of the Opposite Party Bank to burden the complainant and he is liable for the amount due in the account with upto date interest and charges.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rishab Jain, Manager Ex.OP1 alonwith documents Ex.OP2 to OP15 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant got loan facility from Opposite Party to the tune of Rs.17,65,000/- on 23.06.2010  for the purchase of truck No.PB-02-BJ-9713 of Model 2010 of Ashok Layland. Complainant alleges that he paid the regular installments to the Opposite Parties till 23.3.2012. However, later on due to some financial crises, he could not pay the further installments and the Opposite Party Bank repossessed the vehicle on 18.7.2012  and  after completion of other formalities, fixed the sale price of the said truck as Rs.11.5 lacs and stated to put it on auction/ sale. The complainant approached the  Opposite Party that the fixed price made by the Opposite Party is quite low as the truck was purchased of model 2010 and depreciation value for the vehicle upto three years is 20%, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of he complainant. The complainant also made offer to adjust the account with the adjustment of the sale price of the truck in the loan account of the complainant, but the Opposite Parties  delayed the matter for the reasons best known to them. Now the complainant  has come to know that  the officials of the Opposite Party Bank got some other assessments made and are going to sell the truck for meager amount of less than Rs. 5.4 lacs and still claiming the balance amount in the account from the complainant. The Opposite Party did not return the blank signed cheque received from the complainant at the time of advancing the loan nor they are going to remove the name of the complainant from CIBIL.  Ld.counsel for the complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that at the time of sanctioning of the loan facility the documents i.e. application form Ex.OP2, loan application form Ex.OP3, letter of hypothecation Ex.OP4, Confidential report Ex.OP5, consent clause  Ex.OP6, etc. were duly filled in, read over and explained to the complainant and he signed the same after admitting the contents and implications of these security documents as correct. The complainant obtained the loan facility for the purchase of truck. All the installments paid by the complainant were duly credited in his account. The complainant became defaulter as is evident from the statement of account/ Account Ledger Inquiry Ex.OP15. In this regard, a demand notice dated .30.4.2012 Ex.OP9 was issued to the complainant that a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- is overdue for payment with further interest from 24.3.2012 until payment in full is made. However, as the complainant became defaulter, so a sum of Rs.16,33,623/- was due payable by the complainant in all on 27.4.2012 with interest charged upto 23.3.2012 and the complainant was directed to deposit the outstanding overdue amount within 15 days and in the event of  failure, the bank shall be entitled to seize the vehicle and proceed for its sale, but the complainant did not make payment of even single penny and therefore, the possession cum sale notice dated 4.6.2012 Ex.OP10  was issued to the complainant. A public notice was also given in this regard in the newspaper, copy of which is Ex.OP12. Even then, the complainant did not make the payment. Thereafter, registered legal notice was issued to the complainant on 7.9.2012 Ex.OP13  that reserve price of the truck has been fixed at Rs.11.5 lacs and in case, the complainant thinks that the truck has more value as assessed by the bank, the complainant was  free to come forward with the Prospective Buyers at the time of public auction on 10.9.2012 at the given address. The valuation of the truck is Ex.OP14, but the complainant neither turned  up to pay the outstanding amount nor sent his own person and sale at the rate of Rs.11.5 lacs  could not materialize and no other prospective buyers came forward. Thereafter, another market value was got assessed from Surveyor/ Loss Assessor Sh.J.S.Malhotra and the value of the truck was fixed at Rs.11,50,000/- as per document Ex.OP14. Even thereafter, the complainant neither turned up, to pay the outstanding amount nor came forward to purchase the truck. Resultantly, the truck were sold and the amount of sale proceed of the truck was adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant obtained loan facility to the tune of Rs.17,65,000/- from Opposite Party on 23.6.2010  for the purchase of truck No.PB-02-BJ-9713 of Model 2010 of Ashok Layland. Said amount was payable in monthly installments. The complainant himself has admitted that he paid some installments, but later on due to come financial crisis, he could not pay further installments.  The complainant was served with demand notice dated 30.4.2012 Ex.OP9  asking the complainant that a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- is overdue for payment with further interest from 24.3.2012 until payment is made in full and the complainant was called upon to  deposit the outstanding overdue amount within 15 days and in the event of  failure to do so, the bank shall be entitled to seize the vehicle and proceed for its sale to recover the bank dues as per the terms of the loan agreement. But inspite of that, the complainant did not deposit the amount of overdue installments.   Therefore, the Opposite Party issued the  possession cum sale notice dated 4.6.2012 Ex.OP10 to  the complainant keeping  the reference of earlier notice dated 28.4.2012 requesting the complainant to deposit the overdue amount of Rs.5,40,000/-  and  interest w.e.f 24.3.2012 until the payment is made in full. So, through this notice, the Opposite Party directed the complainant that as the complainant had become defaulter, so he was asked to deposit the entire amount of Rs.16,33,623/- +interest until payment is made in full with the bank, otherwise the possession of the vehicle would be taken on or before 29.6.2012 and the same should be put on auction/ sale. But inspite of that, the complainant did not deposit even a single penny towards the aforesaid loan amount of the truck. Even public notice in the newspaper was also issued in this regard, copy of which is Ex.OP12. Not only this, again registered AD Legal Notice dated 7.9.2012 was sent to the complainant in which it was mentioned that the truck was  repossessed by the bank on 18.7.2012 and same was  lying with the Opposite Party Bank. The reserve price of the truck has been got assessed at Rs.11.5  lacs  and the complainant was asked that in case he thinks that the truck is  more than the value as assessed by the bank, the complainant was said to be free to come forward with the prospective buyers at the time of public auction which was going to be held on 10.9.2012 at the given address in the notice. The valuation document of the truck is Ex.OP14. But no buyer came forward at the aforesaid rate on 10.9.2012 nor the complainant come forward with his own prospective buyers to purchase the aforesaid truck or to make the payment of the outstanding amount to the Opposite Party Bank. Therefore, the Opposite Party Bank again got the value of the vehicle assessed from same surveyor/ loss assessor/ approved valuer vide letter dated 4.8.2012 and he assessed the value of the truck as Rs.4,50,000/-. The complainant was again asked to come forward or he may bring his own person to purchase the aforesaid truck, but none appeared on behalf of the complainant to deposit the outstanding amount or purchase the truck in question in open auction. Resultantly, the Opposite Party Bank sold the truck in question in open market and adjusted the amount of sale proceeds of the truck in the loan account of the complainant.
9. As per circular No.10 of 2010 issued by Opposite Party Bank dated 4.5.2012, the Opposite Party Bank could not sell the vehicle after 60 days  from the date of seizure and in that case, the vehicle may be restored back to the buyer. Here in this case, the Opposite Party has written letter to the complainant to come forward to pay the amount due  to the Opposite Party Bank or he may bring his own person for the purchase  of truck in question in open auction, but inspite of that, the complainant neither deposited the outstanding amount to the Opposite Party Bank alongwith interest nor came forward to take the truck on payment of balance amount nor he brought his own  person to purchase the truck in question in open auction. As such, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank.   
10. Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 17.03.2015.                                                              (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                               Member