Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/3/2012

CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB, NOW HDFC BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

T. RAVI KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.3/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.183/2009, dated 23.03.2010 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF JULY 2015

M/s.Centurian Bank of Punjab

Now HDFC Bank Ltd,

No.723-A & B,                                                 M/s.Ganesh & Ganesh

Thirumalai Towers 1^st Floor,                    Counsel for Appellant / Opposite party

Avinashi Road, Coimbatore -2

Rep by its Manager.

-vs-

T.Ravikumar,

S/o. (Late) A Thangaraj,                                    M/s.P.Sakthivel

No.28, V.G.Rao Nagar,                             Counsel for Respondent / Complainant

Ganapathy, Coimbatore -6

          The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.183/2009, dated 23.03.2010.    

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 03.07.2015, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite party is the appellant.

2.       The complainant availed two wheeler finance loan from the then Centurion Bank of Punjab / opposite party which subsequently amalgamated with the HDFC bank  for Rs.45,955/- to  be payable  by EMI in 47 installments and accordingly he had paid 16  EMI through ECS for Rs.21664/- and the balance was paid through their agencies in 13 receipts for another sum of Rs.29276/- and thereby he had paid Rs.64,339/- inspite of the same the men sent by the opposite party demanded for payment of Rs.37826/- to be payable on the date itself and they have forcibly possessed the vehicle from him for which a letter was received on 20.3.2009 informing that he should collect back the original documents within 7 days and thereby he came to know that his purchase agreement endorsement made in the RC book was cancelled by the RTO on 16.10.2008 and thereby he came to know that the vehicle was sold and the loan was adjusted and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed praying for the refund of Rs.64,339/- with 24% interest and return the documents, NOC and 12 post dated cheques and to pay compensation of Rs.97,000/- towards mental agony, loss and to pay Rs.2000/- as costs.

3.       The opposite party denied the allegation contended that the complainant had paid only 29 installments and there was a balance to be payable for Rs.11,228/- and availed another two wheeler loan which was suppressed and not responded for the demand notice sent for presale notice and thereby the vehicle was sold and the amount was adjusted for the loan and intimation was sent to collect all the documents and thereby there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.

4.       The District Forum after an enquiry directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.64,339/- towards the cost of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.2000/- as costs.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without taking into consideration of the default of the complainant in repaying the loan inspite of prior notice and proper presale notice he had not responded for the same and they acted in accordance with the contract and thereby the appeal is to be allowed.

6.       When the appeal is taken for arguments both sides have not represented and argued the matter.  Hence on the basis of both sides materials and upon perusing the materials the order being passed on merits.

7.       It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant availed two wheeler loan from the opposite parties bank and due to alleged default the vehicle was repossessed and sold in auction and the amount was adjusted towards the loan amount against which the complainant come forward with this case contending that he was not given any presale notice and no opportunity given to settle the loan and the henchmen of the opposite party on 27.6.2008 forcibly taken possession of the vehicle demanding for Rs.37,516/-. Whereas the appellant contended that even as per the complainant’s contention there was a balance of Rs.37,516/- and as on date of complaint as the amount of Rs.11,228/- to be payable for which the demand was made on 2.12.2008 for Rs.12,666/- for which he was not responded and thereby the vehicle was sold.  On perusal of the presale auction notice under Ex.B3 dated 2.12.2008 even though it was informed that a sum of Rs.12,666.71 to be paid within 7 days the vehicle would be re-possessed and disposed of for which there is no record to show that they have waited for 7 days for repayment schedule. When they admitted that there was a demand for only Rs.12,666/- for the loan of Rs.45,955/- for which the complainant had already paid Rs.63,339/- more than the loan  availed  with interest, the opposite party could have avoided the seizure of the vehicle and enforced the balance payment by other modes and they also failed to prove the same for the details of the vehicle sold in auction and adjustment of loan amount for Rs.12,666/- and any other excess amount payable to the complainant by intimating the same and only sent the intimation through the agency for the collection of NOC and other documents which would establish the deficiency and lack of bonofidiness on the part of the opposite party and hence in those circumstances we are of the view that the District Forum has considered all the relevant materials and came to proper conclusion in this regard with which findings we find no error or illegality for the same .  As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded for mental agony and deficiency in service which cannot be considered as excessive or abnormal in which findings also there is no need for interference and accordingly

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed as no merits by confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.183/2009, dated 23.3.2010.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                         A.K.ANNAMALAI

     MEMBER                                                  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

INDEX; YES/ NO

VL/D;/PJM/BANK