Complaint presented on : 29.05.2014
Order pronounced on : 11.03.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., : MEMBER II
FRIDAY THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2016
C.C.NO.103/2014
R.Vasanth,
S/O. T.H. Raj Mohan,
No.8, Rani Anna Street,
Thirumullaivoyal,
Chennai – 600 062
..... Complainant
..Vs..
| | HDFC Bank Limited, Represented by its Manager, 110, Nelson Manikam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. | |
| | ...Opposite Party | |
Date of complaint 03.06.2014
Counsel for Complainant : T.M.Ajin
Counsel for Opposite party : M/S. Mohanraj Associates
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Complainant availed a Two Wheeler loan on 13.11.2013 from the Opposite Party under the Loan Account No.26254202 for a sum of Rs.49,541/- for the purchase of HONDA ACTIVA DLX paying Rs.15,500/- as initial amount. The term for the repayment of the said loan is 24 months. The monthly EMI’s will start from 13.11.2013 and will end on 05.10.2015. The EMI was fixed at Rs.2,543/-. The two wheeler registration No.TN 12 A 6423. The Complainant had given six post dated leaves for repayment of loan via cheque No. 021837. 021838,021839,021840,021841 and 021842 drawn on IDBI Bank, Chennai Greams Road Branch. As per the Opposite Party’s request the Complainant executed the ECS Mandate from his Bank. After this the first cheque dated 05.12.2013 for a sum of Rs.2,543/- was deposited by the Opposite Party for collection. The amount also got cleared. The Opposite Party failed to deposit the subsequent cheques. On 28.02.2014 the Opposite Party’s representative came to the Complainant’s house and received a sum of Rs.2,543/- by cash towards the EMI. Even at that point of time the Opposite Party’s representative failed to inform the Complainant that there was some problem with the Complainant’s ECS. All of a sudden on 17.04.2014 the Complainant’s two-wheeler was stolen by the Opposite Party’s representatives without intimating the Complainant or his near ones. No prior notice of any form was served on the Complainant with regard to the illegal act committed by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party representatives have wrongly guided the Complainant and they promised that they will take care about the ECS and all. The Opposite Party cunningly used the Complainant’s innocence and stolen the Complainant’s two wheeler without giving any opportunity to the Complainant to defend his interests. The Complainant submits that to the peak of the Opposite Party’s torture the Opposite Party put the Complainant’s name in the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) in the month of February 2014. This has caused great disrespect to the Complainant and his family members. After the Opposite Party stolen the Complainant’s vehicle the Complainant approached the Opposite Party in their office. At that time the Opposite Party served a Notice upon the Complainant threatening that the Complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.54,752.35/- before 01.05.2014. If the Complaint failed to pay they will proceed with the auction of the said vehicle without any further notice. There was a Deficiency in Service on the part of the Opposite Party due to the act of the bank, as the Complainant suffered with irreparable damage and therefore after issuing legal notice, the Complainant filed this Complaint for return of the two wheeler, compensation with cost of the Complaint.
2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The Complainant availed a Two Wheeler Loan agreement bearing number 26254202 for a sum of Rs.49, 451/- from this Opposite Party and the Complainant agreed to repay in 24 installments at the rate of Rs.2,543/- per month from 13.11.2013 till 05.10.2015. The Complainant executed a two wheeler loan agreement to the Opposite Party. As per clause 8 of the said agreement, in the event of default in payment of loan, the bank has got to engage persons to collect the dues including repossession of the vehicle and even after that the loan was not cleared, the bank can sell the vehicle through public auction or private sale without notice to the borrower. The Complainant has not been prompt in repaying the loan. Further the Complainant gave the ECS mandate to his banker rejected for the reason signature mismatch by letter dated 26.12.2013. The Complainant has not taken any steps to resolve the issue. Hence the Opposite Party promptly sent pre-possession intimation to the local police on 17.04.2014 and after possessing the vehicle post-possession intimation also sent to the same police. Then the Opposite Party sent a letter to the Complainant requiring him to clear the loan dues on or before 01.05.2015 failing to do so the vehicle will be sold. As the Complainant has not cleared the loan, the vehicle was sold and a letter was sent to the Complainant on 02.05.2014 to inform him that after adjusting sale proceeds, an amount of Rs.33,502.35/- is due to the bank. The other allegations made in the Complaint are baseless and concocted by the Complainant for the purpose of the case. As such this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.
3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
4. POINT:1
The admitted facts are that the Complainant availed a two wheeler loan for a sum of Rs.49,541/- from the Opposite Party and agreeing to repay the said loan in 24 months with an EMI at Rs.2,543/- and the Complainant also issued ECS mandate to his bank to pay the EMI’s to the Opposite Party and also the Complainant executed Ex.B1 agreement to the Opposite Party and the registration certificate of the vehicle is Ex.A2.
5. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party failed to deposit the post dated cheque issued by him subsequently and also failed to inform the Complainant that there was a problem with the Complainant’s ECS and all of a sudden on 17.04.2014 without prior intimation the Opposite Party stolen the Complainant’s vehicle and therefore the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service and the Complainant filed this Complaint for re-possession of his vehicle and for compensation.
6. Ex.B2 letter dated 26.12.2013 written by the Opposite Party to the Complainant informing that her banker rejected the ECS mandate for the reason of signature mismatch and therefore to avoid problems in recovering the EMI, execute a fresh mandate and for that purpose enclosing an ECS mandate to fill the same and approach his banker for authorization and submit the authorized ECS mandate to the Opposite Party retail loans division. The Complainant executed loan agreement on 12.11.2013. The 1st EMI starts on 13.11.2013. Due to EMI’s not paid through ECS very next month Ex.B2 letter sent by the Opposite Party stating to issue a fresh ECS mandate, since his earlier mandate was rejected by his banker. Therefore the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party has not informed the problem as the Complainant’s ECS is not accepted and on the other hand the Opposite Party/Bank promptly informed the Complainant through Ex.B2 letter.
7. The next contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party committed theft of his vehicle and therefore committed Deficiency in Service. The Complainant himself executed Ex.B1 loan agreement to the Opposite Party with certain clauses. Further the Complainant has not paid any EMI towards repayment of loan through ECS. AS per Ex.A4 statement on 06.12.2013 a sum of Rs.2,543/- was paid to the Opposite Party towards one EMI. Other than that payment no other EMI’s were paid by the Complainant. Even after Ex.B2 letter, the Complainant has not come forward to issue fresh mandate to his banker. Ex.B3 proves that the EMI’s for the period January 2014 to April 2014 payments through ECS mandate was not received by the Opposite Party and thereby the Complainant committed default in making payments towards vehicle loan obtained by him. Since the Complainant faulted in payment of EMI’s, by virtue of Clause 8.2.b the Opposite Party took possession of the vehicle after intimating to the local police under Ex.B4. The Complainant also contended that without informing him through notice the Opposite Party took his vehicle is at fault. The agreement provides for repossession of the vehicle by the bank when payment defaulted and accordingly the Opposite Party took possession of the vehicle and therefore in the circumstances of the case before the possession notice not issued to the Complainant, the bank is not at fault. Even after possession of the vehicle the Opposite Party sent EX.B5 letter to the Complainant informing that he has to pay a sum of Rs.54,752.35/- to the bank failing to pay, the vehicle will be auctioned and the proceeds will be adjusted towards his loan due. Even after such letter the Complainant has not paid the due and hence the Opposite Party auctioned the vehicle. Though the Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party committed theft of his vehicle, he has not preferred any Complaint to the police, itself shows that the Opposite Party has not committed any theft of his vehicle and on the other hand, the bank has repossessed the vehicle from the Complainant as he committed default in repaying the loan. Therefore in the above circumstances the Opposite Party has not committed any theft of the Complainant’s vehicle and in view of the same, it is held that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.
8.POINT:2
Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in the Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11th day of March 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex. A1 dated 19.04.2014 Statement given by Opposite Party
Ex.A2 dated 20.11.2013 Registration Certificate
Ex.A3 dated 21.01.2013 Driving License
Ex.A4 dated 30.04.2014 Bank Statement
Ex.A5 dated 17.04.2014 Notice served by the Opposite Party
Ex.A6 dated 29.04.2014 Notice sent by the Complainant
Ex.A7 dated 02.05.2014 Acknowledgement
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 dated 12.11.2013 Two Wheeler Loan Agreement
Ex.B2 dated 26.12.2013 Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant
Regarding ECS
Ex.B3 dated 17.04.2014 Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.B4 dated 17.04.2014 Pre-repossession intimation to police station
Ex.B5 dated 17.04.2014 Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant
Regarding out standing Loan amount
Ex.B6 dated 17.04.2014 Statement of Accounts
Ex.B7 dated 17.04.2014 Inventory of items in vehicle
Ex.B8 dated 17.04.2014 Post repossession intimation to police station
Ex.B9 dated 30.04.2014 Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.B10 dated 19.05.2014 Reply legal notice by Opposite Party to
Complainant counsel
Ex.B11 dated 27.05.2014 Acknowledgement card
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
