DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V, President
: Smt. Vidya A, Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K,Member Date of Filing: 30.02.2019
CC/26/2019
Nirmala. G. Gopalan,
W/o sukumaran,
Kariyampatta House
Vengassery, Ambalapara, Palakkad.
(By Adv. Sreeprakash) - Complainant
The Branch Manager,
INDUS IND Bank Ltd.
1254, 1st Floor, N.H Bye Pass Road
Chandra Nagar, Palakkad.
(By Adv.R.Manikandan) - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Sri. N. Krishnankutty, N.K, Member
1. The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 430000/-from the opposite party on 10-07-2014 for purchasing a Ashok Leyland -DOST pick up costing Rs. 560000/-.The loan was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments and the interest rate agreed was 8.8 % (flat).
The complainant's allegation is that, even after making a payment of Rs. 603681.97, the opposite party refused to hand over the original documents of the vehicle and to issue release letter. Further, the opposite party has forcefully taken possession of the vehicle and kept it in open premises causing damage to the vehicle.
2. The main argument of the complainant is that the opposite party has already collected amounts in excess of the terms and conditions of the agreement signed at the time of availing the loan. Hence he has approached this Commission with the following prayers.
A. Directing the opposite party to hand over the possession and
Original documents of the vehicle to the complainant.
B. Directing the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 100000/- being the
excess amount collected along with interest @18%pa.
C. Rs. 100000/- as compensation and
D. Cost.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party and they entered appearance.
4. In between the complainant filed interim application (No. 39/19)
seeking an order to restrain the opposite party from selling the seized
vehicle till the disposal of this case.
Interim injunction was allowed by this Commission till the disposal of the IA. (This IA was subsequently dismissed as the vehicle was already sold before the filing of this complaint, as per the objection filed to this IA by the opposite party.)
5. The opposite party filed their version refuting the allegations. According to them, since the complainant failed to make repayments as per the terms of agreement, they initiated action under SARFAESI act and took possession of the vehicle as per the orders of the CJM Court Palakkad. Since the action taken is per SARFAESI Act, this Commission is not having jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as also to restrain them from selling the vehicle.
6. The maintainability issue on the basis of above arguments was examined by the Commission and decided it in favour of the complainant, since the pleadings relates to the collection of excess amount and deficiency in taking action under SARFAESI act.
7. Issues involved.
1. Whether the opposite party collected any excess amount from the
Complainant in violation of the agreement signed at the time of
granting the loan?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice
in proceeding with SARFAESI action?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
4 .Reliefs, costs if any.
8. The only document marked as evidence by the complainant is the Bank account statement issued by the opposite party on 29/06/2018 which is marked as Ext-A1.The opposite party has not marked any document from their side. Neither the complainant nor the opposite party has filed any statement regarding the further developments in the account ie, after filing of this complaint.
Hence all the conclusions are to drawn only from the Ext. A1.
9. Issue No.1.
From Ext. A1 it can be observed that the total remittance to the loan account Rs. 603681.97 is reflecting in the statement, which shows that the entire amount remitted has been properly accounted in the books of the opposite party.
As per the statement, the total demand was Rs. 717106.97, and hence there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 113245/- in the loan account. This shows that the loan account is outstanding even after the payment of Rs. 603681.97.Further the complainant has not made any specific objection to any of the debit entries in the statement. Hence we are left with no option to decide whether the opposite party has collected any amount beyond the scope of the agreement signed. Moreover the complainant has not produced the copy of agreement as evidence. Hence issue No.1 is decided against the complainant.
10. Issue No. 2.
This is with reference to the SARFAESI action initiated by the opposite party. From the Ext. A1 it very clear that the complainant has never been regular in making monthly repayments. There was not even a single remittance from March to September, 2016. So it is definite that the account must have slipped to NPA in the books of the opposite party during which the SARFAESI action is seen initiated by them. This is evident from the debit of various charges in connection with the SARAFAESI Action in the account statement.
If the complainant had any objections to the SARFAESI Action he could have approached DRT, which is the appellate authority for SARFAESI proceedings. Moreover, the vehicle was taken possession with the specific order from CJM court as per the provisions of the act. Furthermore the complaint has not produced any documents to come to a conclusion regarding the SARFEASI proceedings initiated.
Hence, the act of the opposite party can be seen only as a routine and normal recovery action taken by a lender against the borrower in case of default and so cannot be taken as any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Issue 3&4
In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this day the 29th of November, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V,
President
Sd/-
Vidya A,
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant
Ext. A1 - Bank loan account statement.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties - Nil
Witness examined from the side of complainant - Nil
Witness examined from the side of opposite parties - Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents
submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)
of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure)
Regulations, 2020 failing which they be weeded out.
