Date of Filing: 14.07.2014

                                                                                        Date of Order: 14.08.2018                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT.

HON’BLE Smt. Kasturi, B.Com., LLM., MEMBER.

Tuesday, the 14^th day of August, 2018

C.C.No.436/2014

Between

Mrs. Ellendula Vinoda,

W/o. E.Srinivas,

Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business,

R/o. Flat No.S-1, H.No.8-34,

Sri Venkateswara Castle,

Gowtham Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar,

Hyderabad.                                                                                       ……COMPLAINANT

And

M/s. State Bank of Hyderabad,

City, Branch,

Hyderabad,

Madina Building Pathergatti,

Hyderabad – 500001,

Rep. by it’s Branch Manager.                                                         …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Counsel for the complainant                :  M/s. K.Visweswara Rao

Counsel for the Opposite Party                  :  Smt. Lalitha Sahgal    

O R D E R

(By Hon’ble Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 seeking a direction to the Opposite Party not to seize the car purchased by the complainant by availing a loan under Hire Purchase Agreement and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for causing mental agony and hardship by the Opposite Party due by deficiency and unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as the cost of the complaint.

1. The complainant case in brief is, the representative of the Opposite Party Bank approached and told that, the Opposite Party Bank as facility of granting flexi Car loan to the customers and repayment of the loan can be easy installment and there would not be any penal charges and there will not be any harassment for not paying the installments.  Be induced by the said representations the complainant availed a loan of Rs.5,44,000/- to purchase Honda Car.  Thereafter, she paid the installments regularly till March, 2014.  The monthly instalment payable is at Rs.10,259/-.  Due to some unforeseen circumstances, she could not make payment of installment from April-2014.  When the complainant is unable to adhere to the payments schedule the Opposite Party Bank shows defer the fixed schedule and reschedule it by revising the terms of loan.  But, Opposite Party Bank with an intentions to seize and sell the car to the person known to it and thereby have an additional of benefit, hatched a plan and trying to reposses the car projecting her as defaulter in payment of installments.  When she intended to pay the due amount of Rs.41,036/- the Opposite Party Bank by clubbing the penalties, penal charges, financial charges etc., demanded her to pay a sum of Rs.99,490/-. When she questioned the Opposite Party Bank for collecting excess amount the Bank people developed grudge and in a high handed manner threatened to seize Car without service of notice. 
2. The Opposite Party Bank has no authority to repossess the Car without a prior notice.  Under the Hire Purchase Act prior notice is mandatory before reposing the vehicle.  But, the Opposite Party Bank without giving a reasonable opportunity to make repayment of installments and without considering that she is women had sent it’s men her premises on 24.04.2014 and threatened her with dire consequences.  The Bank people by applying undue influence and coercion has threatened and obtained a letter as if, she got some domestic difficulties and paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.38,000/- will be paid on 12.03.2014 for regularizing of loan account.  She could not have addressed such a letter in the given circumstances but for threats extended by Bank people. 
3. The Opposite Party Bank being an instrumentality of the state should not indulge in unfair trade practice and threaten the complainant.  It is acting like a traditional money lender by deputing the antisocial elements under the guise of recovery agents who acted like gundas and threatened her to repossess the vehicle.   The Bank people are planning to sell the car without giving any reasonable opportunity to pay the amount it amounts to deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party Bank.  Hence, the complaint. 
4. The Opposite Party Bank filed written version admitting sanction of loan the complainant for purchase of a car but denying the rest of the allegations of the complaint.  The version of the Bank is that, the complainant was sanctioned a car loan under Flexi Car Loan scheme with a limit of Rs.5,44,000/- which was disbursed by way of draft on 16.11.2012 but, from the date of disbursement the complainant is irregular in payment of monthly installments.  As per the norms of RBI if the loanee is irregular in payment of installments continuously for two months the account will be treated as non-performing asset.  Even, according to the complainant herself she has not paid the installment from April-2014 to July-2014 continuously for 4 months and she is defaulter.  Under Clause No.12 of Hypothecation Agreement executed by the complainant if she is defaulted payment of more than one instalment the Bank will be authorized to repossess the vehicle and sell it in auction for satisfaction of it’s dues.    The Bank didn’t charge any penalty or penal interest as alleged by the complainant.  The charges and interest are in accordance with the RBI norms and guidelines.   
5. The Bank neither threatened nor indulged in any unfair trade practice and did not collect the signatures of complainant and any blank formats.  The complainant having agreed to the terms and conditions executed Hypothecation Agreement.  By not paying 4 months installments consecutively she has become a wilful defaulter as per the rules of RBI.  By suppressing the true facts the complainant has filed the present complaint with false allegations and obtained interim orders from repossessing the vehicle by the Bank.  There is no deficiency of service by the Bank and on the other hand the complainant became a willful defaulter by not paying monthly installments for 4 consecutive months as such she cannot allege deficiency of service on the part of the Bank.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs and complaint is liable to be dismissed by vacating the earlier interim orders granted infavour of the complainant.      
6.             In enquiry stage the complainant got filed her evidence affidavit got exhibited her loan statement of account for the period from 17.11.2012 to 24.02.2012 and Xerox copy of Registration Certificate as Ex.A1 & A2.  On behalf of the Opposite Party Bank evidence affidavit of it’s Chief Manager is got filed and through him it has exhibited Certificate copy of loan cum Hypothecation Agreement executed by the complainant car seizure notice and original letter stated have been written by the complainant to the Bank requesting to grant time for payment of irregular monthly installment as Ex.B1 to B3.
7. Both sides have filed written arguments and supplemented the same by oral submissions.
8. On a consideration of material on the record the following points have fallen for consideration : 

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank for the complainant who is a lonee from it?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs sought for?
3. To what relief?

9.  Point No.1: The complainant’s version is she was induced by the representations given by the Bank people that, there is Flexi Car loan facilities to it’s customers and no unnecessary penal charges and no harassment will be there for recovery of the loan amount.  At the same time the complainant has not explained whether she is an existing customer of the Bank and during the course of her visits, she was induced.  A plan reading of the complaint contents shows that, except car loan account the complainant has no other account with the Bank.  Infact, it has been stated by the   Opposite Party in the written version and also in the evidence affidavit of it’s chief Manger, the complainant husband also availed car loan from the Bank and became defaulter payment of the installments.  So it appears that the complainant on her own went to the bank and after necessary enquiries availed in the loan for purchase of the car.  It is not the case of the complainant that after necessary formalities and documentation and sanction of loan amount the same was not disbursed in time.  If, the loan amount was not disbursed in the given time then it can be said that, there was deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. 
10.         The complainant has alleged that her signatures were obtained by the Opposite Party Bank people on blank forms and papers and she was not furnished with the copy of Hypothecation Agreement.  As could be seen from the cause title of she is a business woman and no person in the profession of business will sign either on the blank forms or blank papers.  Even, according to the complainant herself she did not pay monthly installments for 4 consecutive months.  It is not in dispute that according to RBI guidelines and norms in case of nonpayment of installments for two consecutive months the account will be treated as NPA.  No exemption is given to her not to treat the loan account as a Non-performing asset (NPA). The complainant also says that, when the lonee did not pay the instilment it is a duty of the bank to reschedule the loan tenure but under which provision the Bank is bound to do it is not explained.  The Hypothecation Agreement in Ex.B1 doesnot contain any such clause so as to say on intimation of the complainant Bank has to reschedule the loan tenure and grant time though she is a wilful defaulter in payment of installments.  One of the allegation of the complainant is Bank had deputed recovery agents who behaved like gundas and threatened her and obtained her signatures on blank papers to prepare a letter as if she agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- and Rs.38,000/- by 12.03.2014.  But what was this necessity for it for the Bank not stated.  From B3 letter from the complainant it is clear that by 24.02.2014 itself the complainant was due of Rs.58,000/- and promised to pay it by 12.03.2014.
11. One of the allegation is that, the Opposite Party Bank without notice tried to repossess the car but the Bank has filed the copy of legal notice issued to the complainant on 11.07.2014.  The Bank has also filed acknowledgement in proof of service of legal notice.  It shows that the Opposite Party bank intend to initiate steps legally and not otherwise.   
12. All this would go to show that, the complainant having became a wilful defaulter in payment of loan installments inorder to prevent the Bank from repossessing the vehicle after service of notice has come with the present complaint and obtained orders against the Bank in repossessing the car and enjoyed the car for these 4 years, though a defaulter in payment of loan installments.  Absolutely, there is no material on record that, to say the Bank has caused deficiency of service or indulged in an unfair manner against the complainant.  Accordingly, the point is answered against the complainant.
13.   In the light of findings of this forum to it is point to follow that the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs.
14. Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed and earlier interim order granted in I.A.139/2014 stands vacated forthwith. 

            Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 14^th day of August, 2018.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 PW1                                                                                                         DW1

Smt. Ellendula Vinoda,                                                                              Sri P.Yerranna,

Chief Manager, SBH 

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 is copy of Statement of Account from 17.11.2012 to 24.02.2014.

Ex.A2: is copy of Registration Certificate.

Exs filed on behalf of the Opposite party

Ex.B1 is copy of Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement, dt.23.11.2012.

Ex.B2 is copy of Car seizure notice, dt.11.07.2014

Ex.B3 is copy of letter of request by complainant to Opposite Party, dt.24.02.2014.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT