SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of illegal auction of complainant’s vehicle(Tractor) are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant being a agriculturist depends on the cultivation work for maintaining his family. Complainant availed a loan from Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Bank, Chandol branch to purchase a tractor which will assist the complainant on his agricultural works. For availing the loan complainant deposited Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand)only as security deposit before the OP-Bank. The total cost of the vehicle amounts to Rs.8,57,000/- which includes the cost for trailer, M.B. plow dish etc. the complaint further reveals that as per the instruction of OP-Bank, complainant received only the Engine of the said tractor from one Sai Traders, Kendrapara, but no assessories which are required for the purpose of cultivation was provided, when the matter was reported before the Bank officials and Sai Traders and request was made to supply the assessories. They paid a deaf ear into the same and obtained the signature of the complainant on some papers. As the complainant could not able to read the ‘English’ language and keep the faith on the version of the bank official put their signatures in the said papers. On dt.25.10.14 the OP No.1 alongwith their officials arrived in the residence of the complainant and seized the vehicle and kept in Bari Police Station, on dt.30.04.14 directed the complainant to deposit Rs.64,643/- within seven days accordingly complainant paid Rs.20,000/-, Branch Manager, OP-Bank on dt.02.02.15 issued a ‘Notice’ that the seized vehicle will be put into auction on dt.04.02.15 which was also published in the odia daily, Odisha Express’, complainant challenged the authenticity of the ‘notice’ published in the daily newspaper. Complaint also reveals that such illegal seizure of the vehicle gives financial loss, mental agony as without the tractor complainant is not able to cultivate their agricultural lands, hence the complaint before the Forum with the prayer that a direction may be given to Ops to release the seize vehicle and to accept the legitimate instalments alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh.
3. Being noticed OP-Bank appeared through their Ld.Counsel and filed reply and written version into the dispute by denying the allegations and submitting the facts it is stated that complainant received one Sonalika DI 42 Rx Model tractor with Engine No.3100EGI331370862F-2 and Chasis No.DZYS-37182283 alongwith the tyre tiller, Sonalika Rotavator-Model SC-175(6FI), M.B.Ploogh, Dish Harrow and Hich Head, Bunfer, Draw Bar (complete assessories) as per the quotation submitted by the complainant vide challan of the supplier ‘Sai Traders with a total cost of Rs.8,85,500/- which was acknowledged and received by the complainant –borrower with his signature. The allegation of the complainant regarding non-receipt of the assessories it is stated that in the written statement that allegations are raised in belated stage and the complainant-loanee has never made any complaint before the Bank authorities nor before the Collector-cum-Administrator of the bank or other higher authorities of OP-Bank.Further complainant has not taken any lawful steps by lodging any FIR on such allegations and slept over the matters for two years. It is categorically stated that if Sai Trader and OP-Bank has taken the signature the complainant in blank papers, so without impleading Sai Traders as a party to the disputes the said allegation are baseless.
Regarding seizure of the disputed vehicle OP-Bank states that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and after serving ‘notices’ to the complainant-borrower to the guarantors on dt.12.03.14,dt.30.03.14 by Regd. Post with AD and lastly a letter on dt.25.10.14, when all such attempts failed OP-Bank to recover the arrear outstanding dues was compelled to seize the vehicle as per the provisions of law. OP-Bank further states that to give a honest and last opportunity to recover the dues the notice was published in the daily newspaper ‘Odisha Express’ which covers the entire state of Odisha and the seizure and possession of the vehicle by the OP-Bank are done as per the norms of the RBI and terms and conditions of the agreement executed between OP-Bank and complainant-borrower and as a consideration of the public money. It is stated that after availing the loan and receipt of the vehicle complainant has not registered his vehicle before the authorities for which ‘notices’ were issued for ‘registration of the vehicle’ on its non-compliance., OP-Bank registered the vehicle on their own effort. As the complaint is devoid of any merit is liable to be rejected with cost.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel Mr. A.Sahoo for the Op-Bank and case of the complainant on merit, gone through the attested photo copies of documents like hypothecation agreement, quotation, money receipt, notices, receipt of the vehicle and accessories which are filed as list of document by OP-Bank. Complainant filed an attested xerox copy of the letter dt.13.03.14 addressed to OP No.2 alongwith a postal receipt. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant availed a loan from the OP-Bank to purchase a tractor alongwith assessories through the dealer Sai Traders,Kendrapara. It is further admitted that the disputed vehicle is repossessed and notice was published in the daily newspaper to put in auction of the said vehicle.
The allegations of the complainant in the present dispute are two fold nature. Firstly it is alleged that though OP-Bank sanctioned the loan to purchase the tractor after completion of formalities, the concerned dealer namely Sai Traders who delivered the tractor did not supply the complete assessories in connayvance with the bank officials, for which the tractor remains idle and complainant could not used the said tractor for the purpose of agriculture. Complainant to strtengthen his version filed a photo copy of letter addressed to OP No.2 dt.13.03.14 alongwith the Regd. Post and receipt narrating the grievance of non-receipt of assessories. But the complaint petition is completely silent regarding the letter issued to OP No.2 by the complainant on dt.13.03.14.
On the otherhand OP-Bank in their submission that complainant-borrower has never brought these allegations before OP No.2 rather the complainant –borrower on receipt of the complete assessories from Sai Traders and being satisfied has put his signatures. OP-Bank to substantiate their version filed Invoice copy of Sai Traders dt.09.11.13 and dt. 13.11.13 and quotation dtd. Nil and Chall dt. 03.11.13 which shows that complainant-borrower, has received the assessories as per the ‘quotations’ and challan by putting his signatures and the total amount is Rs.8,85,000/- which includes the cost of the engine and different assessories. Apart from the above evidences the questions raised by OP-Bank in their written statement that what prevented the complainant-borrower to file any written complaint before the higher authorities or to take shelter of law on non-receipt of the assesseries in this regard complainant has failed miserably to satisfy this Forum regarding the questions raised by the Op-Bank. In the dispute the important person is the dealer Sai Traders as revealed from the complaint and written statement, curiously such a important side has not been impleded as a party to decide the genuniness of the allegations of the complainant. In the circumstances, the OP-Bank can not be held liable for any deficiency in service.
The second allegation of the complainant is that the vehicle in question was illegally repossessed by the OP-Bank on dt.25.10.14 without serving any prior ‘notice’ and kept the seized vehicle at Bari Police Station. It is also submitted that on dt.30.04.14 when OP-Bank issued notice to pay Rs.64,643/- as an arrear outstanding dues against such arrear outstanding dues complainant has paid Rs.20,000/-,OP-Bank protesting such allegations presented that complainant has paid only ‘ 4 ‘ nos. of installments till date,further as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and after issuing a number of ‘notices, OP-Bank was forced to seize the vehicle. We perused the notices, letters issued by OP-Bank through Regd.post to the complainant-borrower and the guarantors on dt.05.01.15, 31.10.14, 12.03.14 and lastly on dt.27.01.15 prior to auction of the said vehicle on dt.04.02.15. It is also clear from the Cl.No. 8 and 9 that the OP-Bank has the authority to repossess the vehicle in case of default of payment of arrear outstanding dues. The ‘notice’ dt.05.01.15 reveals that an amount of Rs.8,13,145/- is pending on the complainant-borrower as an outstanding arrear dsues. Now, it is clear that complainant has an arrear outstanding dues against the seized vehicle for which the OP-Bank after due service of ‘notices’ seized the vehicle of the complainant and put into ‘auction’ of the vehicle by serving prior ‘notice’. As there is a valid agreement exists between the parties, which is a ‘contract’, parties entered into a ‘contract’ can not unilaterally change the terms and conditions. Further No Court/Forum/Tribunal can not interfere into a valid contract unless and until it affects the public policy as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of the Country.
Considering the facts and documents present before us, it is clear that the OP-Bank has not committed any deficiency in service by repossessing the vehicle of the complainant and by putting the vehicle into ‘auction’ as the complainant-borrower is a defaulter in case of repayment of the arrear outstanding dues of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Interim order passed in the I.A.Case No.3/2015 which arises out of the present dispute is hereby vacated. Simultaneously, it is suggested that if complainant-borrower pay Rs.1 lakh only within one month of receipt of this order the OP-Bank will consider his case sympathetically and will release the vehicle of the complainant-borrower, till then no coercive action should be taken against the complainant-borrower. Further the OP-Bank has legal right to collect monthly EMI’s/instalments as per the norms and terms and conditions of the agreement. If, complainant fails to comply the observations, the OP-Bank is at liberty to take lawful action against the complainant-borrower.
Having observations reflected above, the complaint is dismissed on merit.
No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 24th day of August,2015.
