CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/452/22

          Date of Institution:-    06.01.2023

          Order Reserved on:- 29.05.2024

                    Date of Decision:-      24.10.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

S. B. Tripathi

Advovate

863, Om Apartments,

Sector14, Pocket 2,

Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

State Bank of India

Through Branch Manager

Rama Park Branch, Mohan Garden

Shop No.11 & 12, Mohan Bhagwati Shopping Complex,

Near Metro Pillar No.769,

New Delhi - 110059

…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe has availed a car loan of Rs.5 lakh from OP for his MarutiVitaraBreeza car bearing registration no.DL9CAY6568 in June, 2022. The repayment mode was ECS. The sales representative of M/s Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd. i.e. dealer introduced him to Sh. Chetan, Representative of OP, at Maruti Showroom, Sector-13 Metro Station, Dwarka for loan. The representative has taken his ID proof, PAN card, Copies of ITR, 8 security cheques bearing no.000234-241 drawn on UCO Bank, Supreme Court Branch, signatures on hypothecation agreement, irrevocable power of attorney, form 34 and 35 and other documents. He has protested while signing the blank papers but in vain. He wanted a loan so he had no option but to sign the documents. The taking of security cheques is illegal when repayment mode is ECS as directions to this effect were issued by RBI in Circular dated 18.03.2013. These documents authorised the OP to dispose off his car without his permission and consent. He has issued email dated 18.09.2022 to the OP to return the security cheques, forms 34 and 35 and other documents but no response received from OP. A legal notice dated 04.10.2022 was issued to the OP but without any result. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP did not put the appearance despite due service and accordingly proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.04.2023.

3. The complainanthas filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.C-1/1 to C-1/9. The complainant has only put exhibits on front page of the cheque book, record slip of the cheques and bank account statement Ex.CW1/3. The remaining exhibits are not put on the documents.

4. We heard the complainant and perused the entire material on record.

5. The complainant has taken loan on his car bearing registration no.DL3CAY6568 from OP. The OP has taken eight security cheques bearing no.000234-241 drawn on UCO Bank, Supreme Court Branch. The OP has also taken signatures of the complainant on hypothecation agreement, irrevocable power of attorney, form 34 & 35 and other documents despite alleged objection from the complainant.

6. The complainant has taken loan from OP. The OP has to fulfil the formalities in order to secure the debt due to which the hypothecation agreement, irrevocable power of attorney and form 34 & 35 are got signed from the complainant. These documents are taken by way of abundant precaution in order to secure the loan and no fault can be attributed to the OP. Moreover, the complainant is a practising lawyer and he could have very well refused to sign the documents or could have taken the loan from some other bank or agency in case he was not willing to sign all these documents. The question of force to sign these documents is without any merit.

7. There is Circular dated 24.07.2013 from RBI which is Annexure-A2 and shown as Ex.C-1/4 in the affidavit. This shows that no fresh/additional post-dated cheques shall be accepted in locations where facility of ECS/RECS is available.

8. The mode of payment of loan as alleged by complainant is ECS. The OP should not have taken the post-dated cheques from the complainant for the payment of instalments. This circular must have been within the knowledge of OP and even then post-dated cheques were taken for the reasons best known to OP. The one cheque bearing no.000234 of Rs.7794/- has been got encashed by the OP as apparent from Bank account statement Ex.CW1/3. The evidence has been led by the complainant on 19.09.2023. The evidence does not show that other cheques were also got encashed by the OP.

9. The OP has acted contrary to the directions issued vide circular Annexure-A2 which tantamounts not only unfair trade practice but also amounts to deficiency of service.

10. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that the OP shall return the 7 cheques baring no.000235-241 to the complainant.The complainant is entitled for compensation on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 24.10.2024.