Date of filing : 18/09/2015

Order No.  21  dt.  21/03/2018/

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant entered into an agreement with o.p.  bank on 29.11.12 for purchasing a vehicle, Ashoke Layland. After purchasing the vehicle the complainant started to repay the loan amount. All on a sudden the complainant received a letter from o.p. bank on 5.6.15 informing the complainant that an amount of Rs.92,872/- is outstanding plus Rs.12,57,600/- future amount is due and payble by the complainant within 7 days, otherwise o.p. bank will take necessary steps. It was further stated that at the time of obtaining loan the complainant was never informed regarding the terms and conditions of the agreement. The o.p. bank subsequently claimed a hefty amount for which the complainant filed this case stating inter alia that the bank took over possession of the said vehicle for non payment of dues. Since o.p. bank acted illegally for that reasons the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to release the vehicle at once and also to pay compensation and litigation cost.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle obtained loan from o.p. bank for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.19,40,000/- and at the time of obtaining loan the complainant entered into an agreement with o.p. bank. In the loan agreement it was stated that in case of any dispute regarding the said agreement the parties can go for arbitration, but the complainant did not avail of that opportunity. The vehicle was hypothecated and charged in favour of o.ps. as security towards repayment of the outstanding dues of the complainant in terms of the said agreement and the said date of hypothecation cum loan agreement dt.29.11.12 and by way of 1^st and paramount charged over the said vehicle. as per the terms of the agreement the complainant was required to pay principal sum of Rs.19,40,000/- along with interest @ 6.98% per annum in 53 EMIs of Rs.50,354/- for the 1^st installment and Rs.52,400/- for the remaining installments. The complainant failed and neglected to repay the EMI for which notice was issued to the complainant, but no fruitful result was achieved. Since the complainant defaulted in payment of the installments, o.p. bank had no other alternative but to take possession of the vehicle. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. stated that o.p. bank being the financer had every right to take possession of the said vehicle since actual owner of the said vehicle was the bank till the repayment was made by the complainant. In view of the said fact o.ps. stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and as such, the case is to be dismissed.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant obtained loan from o.p. bank for purchasing the vehicle?
2. Whether the complainant failed to pay the EMIs regularly?
3. Whether o.ps. took possession of the vehicle?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
5. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant entered into an agreement with o.p.  bank on 29.11.12 for purchasing a vehicle, Ashoke Layland. After purchasing the vehicle the complainant started to repay the loan amount. All on a sudden the complainant received a letter from o.p. bank on 5.6.15 informing the complainant that an amount of Rs.92,872/- is outstanding plus Rs.12,57,600/- future amount is due and payble by the complainant within 7 days, otherwise o.p. bank will take necessary steps. It was further stated that at the time of obtaining loan the complainant was never informed regarding the terms and conditions of the agreement. The o.p. bank subsequently claimed a hefty amount for which the complainant filed this case stating inter alia that the bank took over possession of the said vehicle for non payment of dues. Since o.p. bank acted illegally for that reasons the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to release the vehicle at once and also to pay compensation and litigation cost.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle obtained loan from o.p. bank for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.19,40,000/- and at the time of obtaining loan the complainant entered into an agreement with o.p. bank. In the loan agreement it was stated that in case of any dispute regarding the said agreement the parties can go for arbitration, but the complainant did not avail of that opportunity. The vehicle was hypothecated and charged in favour of o.ps. as security towards repayment of the outstanding dues of the complainant in terms of the said agreement and the said date of hypothecation cum loan agreement dt.29.11.12 and by way of 1^st and paramount charged over the said vehicle. as per the terms of the agreement the complainant was required to pay principal sum of Rs.19,40,000/- along with interest @ 6.98% per annum in 53 EMIs of Rs.50,354/- for the 1^st installment and Rs.52,400/- for the remaining installments. The complainant failed and neglected to repay the EMI for which notice was issued to the complainant, but no fruitful result was achieved. Since the complainant defaulted in payment of the installments, o.p. bank had no other alternative but to take possession of the vehicle. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. stated that o.p. bank being the financer had every right to take possession of the said vehicle since actual owner of the said vehicle was the bank till the repayment was made by the complainant. In view of the said fact o.ps. stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and as such, the case is to be dismissed.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant took loan from o.p. bank for purchasing the vehicle and at the time of obtaining loan the complainant entered into an agreement with o.p. bank. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant failed to pay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement and o.p. bank informed the complainant for non payment of the loan amount what will be the consequence i.e. the vehicle may be taken possession by o.ps. The complainant ignored the said fact. It is an admitted fact that o.ps. being the financer of the said vehicle had every right to take possession of the vehicle. Since the actual owner of the vehicle being the bank who paid the money for purchasing the vehicle, after payment of the loan amount the complainant would become the owner of the said vehicle. The o.p. bank as per terms of the loan agreement took possession of the said vehicle for non payment of the dues by the borrower / complainant, therefore we hold that no illegality was committed by o.p. bank for taking possession of the vehicle. Therefore, the question of releasing the vehicle in favour of the complainant does not arise. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.465/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.