RESERVED
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
Lucknow
Apeal No. 30 of 2012
INDUSIND BANK LIMITED …….Appellant.
Versus
TAHIR ALI ……Opposite Parties.
Present:-
- Hon’ble Sri Udai Shanker Awasthi , Presiding Member
- Hon’ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.
Sri Adeel Ahmed, Advocate for the Appellant
Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the Respondents.
Date: 23-11-2016
Judgment
Sri Mahesh Chand, Member-This Appeal Under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been filed by Indusind Bank against the Judgment and order dated 6.9.2011 of District Consumer Forum, Bareilly, passed in the complaint case No 121 of 2008Tahir Ali s/o Kallan Shah r/o Mohalla Ulhattapur, Village Chanheti post Chanheti, Tehsil Sadar District Bareilly vs. Indusind Bank Limited, through its manager and Another. In brief the facts of the dispute are that the complainant-respondent for his livelihood purchased a tempo No UP-25-5798 in Rs 116,000/- out of which financial help of Rs 80,000/- in form of loan was provided by the opposite party no. 1. He deposited a sum of Rs36,000/- with the opposite party no. 1. He had deposited Rs 66050/- with the bank in various installments. Due to some faults in the vehicle, he could not deposit the installments of the loan. On 21.7.2007 the recovery agent and goondas of the bank seized the vehicle and took away forcefully. Without giving information to the complainant, the opposite party- appellant sold the vehicle for a value of Rs.48000/-. The opposite party did not return the balance amount to the complainant and ultimately on 19.4.2008 refused to return any amount and some land documents of the complainant deposited with the opposite party. Being aggrieved with this behavior of the opposite party, the complainant filed the complainant no 121 0f 2008 in District Consumer Forum for the refund of Rs 91000/-.
The opposite party filed the written statement before the District Forum. The opposite party denied the averments of the complainant as stated in the complaint. The opposite party- respondent stated in the WS that the complainant was not regular in depositing the installments so he was liable to pay the penal interest for late payment of installments. The opposite party also denied that they repossessed the vehicle with the help of goondas. The complainant deposited the vehicle himself and granted permission to sale it. The opposite party also stated that the complainant was bound with the terms and conditions of the agreement which he entered into at the time of grant of loan. The vehicle was sold in public auction after informing the complainant. The opposite party denied the other averments of the complainant. The opposite party submitted the statement of account also with the written statement as their evidence.
The learned District Forum after going through the documents and evidences of both the parties and hearing the arguments of their learned counsels passed the following order:-
“ This consumer complaint of the complainant Tahir Ali against the opposite party no. 1 Indusind Bank is allowed with costs for recovery of amount Rs 28,614/-. The opposite party will pay the said amount to the complainant within a period of 30 days otherwise the complainant will be entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing the complaint”.
Being aggrieved with the impugned order the Appellant-Opposite Party filed this appeal on the grounds that the impugned order dated 6.9.2011 is not based on the true facts. The complainant did not complied with the payment schedule. The learned District Forum erroneously believed that the due amount was Rs 19386/- only while it ignored the amount of the future installments to be deposited by the complainant. In fact the due amount of the future installments was Rs 38,625/-. Keeping in view the true facts the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The respondent-complainant filed the written statement and stated their in that on 31.7.2009, the balance amount of Rs 19,386/- of the Appellant bank was due on the respondent. After deducting balance amount of Rs 19386/- of the loan from the auction amount of Rs 48000/-, a sum of Rs 28614/- remained available with the bank. By passing the decree of this claim, the learned District Forum committed no mistake. By not refunding this amount, the bank has adopted the unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in bank service. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
After going through the record available on file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties we are of the view that the learned District Forum has erred in ignoring the fact that the amount of Rs 19,386/- was due of the installments to be paid by 21.7.2007 only while the installments were to be paid up to 21.5.2008. The learned counsel of the appellant drew our attention towards the statement of account-Annexure-4 of the appeal, according to which the invoice of the purchased vehicle was for Rs 122,000/- . The bank finance was Rs 90000/- and rest amount of Rs 32,000/- as margin money was provided by the complainant-respondent. An amount of Rs3800/- has been charged towards the premium of insurance of the vehicle and a sum of Rs 1000/- was charged as process fee as shown in another statement attached with annexure-4. This amount of Rs 36800/-has been deposited by the complainant and admitted by the appellant-respondent. The loan amount of Rs 90,000/- along with interest amount of Rs20,475/- was to be deposited by the complainant in 29 monthly installments from dated 21.1.2006 to dated 21.5.2008 as follows:-
1. Amount of 20 installments each of Rs 4000/- = Rs 80,000/-
2.Amount of 8 installments each of Rs 3810/- = Rs 30,480/-
3.Amount of 1 installments each of Rs 3795/- = Rs 3,795/-
Total = Rs 142,475/-
In the statement other AFC System charges on various dates have been shown which aggregates to a sum of Rs 2204/-. In the statement legal arbitration expenses of Rs100/- and Consumer Forum Expenses Rs 10,000/- have also been debited to the loan account. From the perusal of the statement it is apparent that the total of basic loan amount of Rs 90,000/- and the interest amount Rs20,475/- on the installments should be Rs110,475/- and after adding amount of Rs 3800/- of the insurance premium it comes out to be Rs 114,275/- . If the AFC system charges of Rs 2204/- are also added to this amount the total dues becomes Rs 116,479/-. The total amount deposited by the complainant-respondent is Rs 141,582/-(Rounded off). This amount of Rs 108,582/- includes Rs 48,000/- of the auction sale proceeds of the vehicle. After deduction of margin money of Rs 32,000/- and process fee amount of Rs 1000/- from this this deposit amount balance amount remains 108,582/- for adjustment towards loan amount and interest. Thus if we ignore legal arbitration expenses of Rs100/- and Consumer Forum Expenses Rs 10,000/- ,the net dues that still remains balance towards the complainant are Rs (116,479 - 108,582/-) = Rs7897/-. The learned District Forum has held that the said vehicle was not snatched by the opposite party –appellant and this finding has not been challenged by the complainant-respondent hence this become final against him. Thus appears to no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-opposite party. Thus in view of the above analysis we come to the conclusion that the learned district forum has erred in not taking in to consideration of all the facts and passing the impugned order which appears to be prima facie based on wrong facts and is liable to be set aside.
Order
The appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. The impugned order dated 6.9.2011is set aside. The parties will be bear their own costs. Hence no order to the costs.
(Udai Shanker Awasthi) (Mahesh Chand)
Presiding Member Member
S.k. st. c-5
