SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
In short, complaint case is that he is an unemployed youth and for his livelihood he applied to the OP Bank for a financial assistance and purchased vehicle AL2516, IL24 FT REFFER CONTAINER bearing Engine No. EWPZ 112243. The OP sanctioned an amount of Rs 14,00,000/- in favour of the complainant under a loan agreement No. WMH 00279 D date 17.04.2015. The said amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- was directly delivered to the dealer of the said vehicle and the vehicle was Registered as No. WB 29 A 9620. The complainant was asked only to put his signature on the agreement dated 17.04.20156 and no copy of the agreement was handed over to him. The petitioner had been paying the monthly installments to the OP bank regularly and on 21.08.2017 he paid the installment. On 21.05.2017 some agents of the OP Bank came to the premises of the complainant and asked to hand over key of the vehicle and they forcefully took over possession of the vehicle on 21.05.2017 and sold the same without giving any information to the petitioner. It is the further case of the complainant that he received a letter dated 22.09.2017 wherefrom it appeared that the loan agreement between him and the OP Bank h ad been terminated due to default committed by the petitioner although the last date of payment of installment was made by the petitioner on 21.08.2017.
Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed this complaint on the ground of gross deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and has prayed for the reliefs as mentioned in the complaint petition.
The OP Indusind Bank has contested the complaint case by filing written version and denied all the material allegations made against them and prayed for dismissal of the complaint case under various provisions of law.
The positive averment made in the written version is that in the agreement the parties has been stated as “borrower and lender” and as such it is essentially a civil dispute and not maintainable by Consumer Forum. In the agreement it was categorically stated that until full loan amount is paid, the vehicle would remain hypothecated in favor of the OP Bank. As per terms of the agreement the loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of Rs. 37,200/- each of which the first would be payable on 21.05.2015 and the last on 21.02.2020. But the complainant failed and neglected to pay the due installments in time and as on 31.08.20918 the overdue amount was Rs. 4,64,845/- along with banking interest. Further case of the OP is that the complainant paid the installments all times beyond the stipulated date. It is the averment of the OP that the complainant surrender the vehicle himself by letter dated 21.05.2017.
Under the above premises, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint case with costs.
Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version and all the documents filed by both the parties and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant.
Admittedly the complainant availed of loan facility for purchase of his vehicle and he took financial assistance from the OP Bank to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/-. He agreed to repay said loan amount along with interest agreed there under in sixty equal MIS commencing from 21.05.2015 upto 21.02.2020. On the default of the complainant to pay the dues, according to the OP, the agreement stood terminated if-so facto and the OP was entitled to recovery possession of said vehicle and to sell the same for satisfaction of the claim of the OP. The allegation of the OP is that the complainant used to pay the installments beyond the stipulated date the so the complainant is liable to pay delay payment charge which was expressly agreed between the complainant and the bank in the agreement.
The OP also pointed out that there was an Arbitration Clause in the agreement and without going to the Arbitration Authority the complainant can’t filed this case before this consumer forum as section 5 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 bars jurisdiction of any other court to entertain the matter. But it is a settle law under the Consumer Protection Act , as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which says – the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. So we find that there is no jurisdictional bar to entertain the complainant by this forum in spite of the fact of having an Arbitration Clause in the agreement.
The Opposite party also stated that the complainant himself surrenders the vehicle after execution of a surrender letter 21.05.17 (Annexure C in this case).
We have perused annexure C which is copy of the letter written by the complainant to the Branch Manager of the OP Bank to surrender the vehicle being registration no. WB- 29A/9620.
So, in view of the said provision of the C P Act, 1986 the case before the Consumer Forum is not illegal.
Ld advocate for the OP submitted that the complaint case has been filed with gross suppression and distortion of material facts. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
After careful consideration of entire materials on record we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and accordingly he is not entitled to get any kind of relief from this Forum.
Both the issues are answered accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/574 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.
The parties do bear their respective cost.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
