BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
Present: Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. PRESIDENT (FAC)
Smt: Meena Ramanatham, B.Com., Lady Member
Thursday, the 26th day of August 2010
CC. No. 1 of 2010
Between:
Padmati Govardhan Reddy,
S/o Narayan Reddy,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Guntapally (V), Mondal Kondapur,
Dist. Medak. .... Complainant
And
The Branch Manager,
ICICI. Bank, Br. Begumpet,
Hyderabad. ... Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 28.07.2010 in the presence of Sri. N. Chandrashekar Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri Anantha Rao Kulkarni Advocate for opposite party, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri. Mekala Narsimha Reddy, President (FAC))
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to cancel the hypothecation of the vehicle and to issued the No Objection Certificate and also direct the return the second key and further to direct to pay the damages of Rs.50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant is resident of Gunthapally village, Mandal Kondapur, dist Medak. He had obtained vehicle loan of Rs.33,000/- from the opposite party vide loan account No. LTSNG 00010731305 and agreed to repay the same in (18) monthly installments commencing from August, 2007 at Rs.2,205/- per month. The opposite party had taken (18) cheques and second key of the vehicle from the complainant and the opposite party had encashed the same. One cheque was not encashed as the complainant had directly paid the amount of Rs.2,205/- vide receipt No. 1925703 on 16.10.2008. Hence the complainant had repaid the entire amount. At the time of taking loan the complainant has hypothecated the vehicle with the opposite party bank. After payment of the entire amount the complainant demanded to cancel the hypothecation. Even the opposite party have demanded the complainant for two installments as the cheque Nos. 156567, dt. 05.01.2008 and cheque No. 156572, Dt. 1407.2008 have not encached, upon that the complainant enquired with his bank i.e. district Co-operative Central Bank, Local Branch Sangareddy and they issued a certificate on 12.08.2009 that the said cheques have encashed on 18.01.2008 and 14.07.2008 respectively. Hence the complainant has cleared off the entire amount and not due any amount. The second key of the vehicle is with the opposite party.
It is further submitted that even after the payment of entire amount the recovery assistant of the opposite party demanded the amount, upon that the c
Complainant informed that he has paid the entire amount and there is no due. The Recovery Assistant instead of keeping silent insulted the complainant by face and through phone. The acts of the officials of the opposite party are illegal.
The complainant is entitled for cancellation of the hypothecation of the vehicle since he has paid the entire loan amount and there are no dues. Due to the negligence of the opposite party, the complainant suffered much mental pain and agony. Lastly the complainant got issued the legal notice on 20.10.2009 and the opposite party failed to cancel the hypothecation of the vehicle. As such the complainant is entitled for compensation, damages and costs. There is deficiency in the services of opposite party had cancelled the hypothecation of the vehicle, the complainant would have saved from the litigation. So opposite party is liable to pay exemplary damages, compensation and costs to the complainant. The complainant is herewith filing the copies of all the documents for kind perusal and the same may be marked as exhibits. The last payment by way of cheque was made on 11.12.2008. The banker of the complainant had issued the certificate on 12.08.2009 about intimating the encashment of cheques. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party filed their version with the following averments:
The opposite party further submit that the complainant is devoid of merits and hence not maintainable in law that each and every allegations, contentions and statements in the complaint under reply are denied is totally save and except what is specifically admitted it is submitted that nothing may be construed as admitted by this opposite party unless and until specifically admitted. That complainant had obtained vehicle loans of Rs. 33,000/- from the opposite party vide loan account No. LTSNG 00016731305 and agreed to repay the same in (18) monthly installments commencing from August, 2007 at Rs.2,205/- p.m. and that the complainant had given (18) cheques to the opposite party. It is submitted that the bank does not admit that the opposite party had taken second key of the vehicle from the complainant. However, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
That the opposite party have demanded the complaint for two installments the cheque No. 156567, dated 05.01.208 and cheque No. 156572 dated 04.07.2008 have not encashed. Then the opposite arty had informed the complaint regarding about that fact subsequently the complainant has paid amount towards the cheques amount as the cheques No. 156567 on 05.01.2008 was returned unpaid y the other bankers on 23.09.2008 with the reason “ENCODING ERROR NON CHARGABLE-ENN” and so the complaint had paid the cash payment towards the above cheque and where as the cheque No. 156572 when the said cheques was presented in the bank the same was returned as insufficient funds. The bank informed the same and subsequently presented the cheque and got it cleared. Customer has given cheques from series 156562-156578 to ICICI Bank Ltd., out of which two cheques got returned 156567 and 156572. Cheques No. 156572 was presented again was cleared in the meantime customer paid one EMI by cash may be mistakenly customer has thought that even cheque 156567 is cleared as well but the same is not cleared till date. Cheque No. 156578 got returned because of insufficient funds, to the bank is still to receive one installment.
That the complainant had given 18 cheques No. 156562 to 156578 standing from 05.08.2007 to 05.01.2009 out of the above cheques customers two EMI were returned unpaid for the customer bank cheque no. 156567 dated 05.01.2008 was returned unpaid the other banker on 23.09.2008 with the reason “Encoding Error Nonchargable EEN” and othe rcheque NO. 156578 dated 05.01.2009 got bounced on 17.01.2009 and the reason for bounce is “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS” be cheque and memo returned cheque No. 156578 on 12.01.2009 is filed herewith for your kind perusal and the same is marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 statement of account. Bank statement account clearly shown that cheque No. 156578 cheque bounce on 17.01.2009 for Rs.2,205/-.
That the complainant has not paid the total 18 installments that there is a only one installment is due Rs. 2,205/- and Rs.1950/- over due charges + service taxes which comes for total amount of Rs.4,205/-. The opposite party does not admit that the complainant has cleared off the entire amount and not due amount and the second key of the vehicle is with the opposite party is false and velsmantly opposed the same. However the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The opposite party does not admit that even after the payment of entire amount the recovery assistant of the opposite party demanded the amount and recovery assistant insulted the complainant by face and through phone is false hence denied.
The opposite party has not collected any of the originals either it may be RC book or keys. That as per company policy only mark Hypothecation in the customer registration book. The complainant has to pay the amount and over due charges and service tax for the opposite party and opposite party is ready to close the matter and issue the no due certificate to that effect and cancel the Hypothecation. The complainant has not filed any proof of that he had paid entire amount to opposite party and all the 18 cheques were encashed for which he had not filed any document to show that the loan was cleared.
That there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the opposite party is not liable to pay nay damages, compensation of costs to the complainant. The opposite party submit that the complainant is not entitled to any damages of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has filed the false and frivolous case due to which a great loss has been caused to the reputation of the respondent and has further resulted in loss of its valuable time.
The complainant has filed the chief affidavit, written arguments along with original documents which are marked as Ex. A1 to A7. The opposite party also filed counter affidavit, written arguments along with documents which are marked on Ex. B1 to B4. Both sides heard.
The point for consideration whether the complainant is pay the last installment towards the vehicle loan and proved the case against opposite party?
The complainant council argument that took the vehicle loan from opposite party of Rs. 33,000/- and agreed to repay the same in 18 installments. The opposite party has taken 18 cheques and kept the second key in there. After payment of the entire amount the complainant demanded to cancel the hypothecation and to return the second key. The opposite party rejected the plea for payment two cheques No. 156567 and 156572 is due. Further argued that said cheques were encashed with local bank, Sangareddy said certificate produced before opposite party.
The allegation the complainant is that the recovery assistant of the opposite party instead of keeping silent insulted the complainant on hone and illegal act complainant reserves his right to take action. The complainant is entitles for cancellation of hypothecation of the vehicle he had paid entire loan was paid no dues to opposite party. Even after filing the complainant also opposite party failed to return the second key and cancel the hypothecation in proof of dis-honour of the changer complainant filed proofs.
Otherwise opposite party council argued the matter every allegation made by the complaint is devoid of merits have not maintainable in law. The bank does not admit had taken second key of the vehicle from the complainant. The opposite party have demanded the complainant for two cheques No. 156567 and 156572 not encashed subsequently presented. The cheque and got it cleared. Another cheque 156567 is cleared as well but the same is not cleared till date cheque No. 156578 got returned because of insufficient funds to the bank in still to receive one installment.
Further contention of opposite party is that the cheque No. 156567 dated 05.01.2008 was returned unpaid the other banker on 23.09.2008 with the reason encoding error nonchargable Len and other cheque no. 156578 dated 05.01.2009 got bounced on 17.01.2009 and the reason for bounce insufficient funds for Rs. 2,205/-. The complaint has not paid the total 18 installments that there is a only one installment in due Rs. 2,205/- and Rs. 1950/- over due charges + service taxes. Which comes for total amount Rs. 4,205/- further contended there opposite party not collected any original R.C. book or keys. Only mark hypothecation in the customer registration book. The complainant has not filed any proof for paid entire installments to show that the loan was cleared. Hence opposite party is not liable to pay any damages, compensation of costs to the complainant.
We gone through the contents and perusal of records and arguments of both councils, no dispute regarding the loan agreement any dispute in last installment cheque No. 156578 is bounced not cleared so far. In this case Ex. A1 bank pass book clearly shows that the cheque amount was cleared on 12.01.2009 same was deducted from the complainant. The complainant is paid by him in face value (Ex.A2) the opposite party not aware of deducted amount and filed the alleges cheque are cleared subsequently except 156578 is due. Whereas the entire documents have been proving the complainant is not due to opposite party towards installments. The dispute between the banks but not the complainant as such the above circumstances of facts the opposite party done grass negligence upon the complainant to issuing the no objection certificate. Therefore the opposite party is liable to discharge the plea of complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed with costs.
In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to cancel the hypothecated and issued No Objection Certificate and pay Rs.5,000/- for costs and compensation. The order shall be comply within one month from date of receipt of this order.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 26th day of August, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT (FAC) LADY MEMBER
Copy to
1) The Complainant copy delivered to the complainant/
2) The Opposite party opposite party.Party On ________
3) Spare copy dis.No. /2010, dt.
