Date of Filing : 20.12.2011
Date of Order : 03.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 3rd APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 229 / 2011
Gurappa Ramaiah Shettimada,
Shetty madamangala Village,
Velagalabure Post, Sagatur Hobli,
Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri. M.P. Narayana Swamy, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Hoskote ADB,
Thimme Gowda Extension, Hoskote,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri. P. Puniraju, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
The Complainant filed this Complaint u/s. 12 of C.P. Act seeking compensation for seizing Tractor & Trailer along with Tomato plastic trays on the ground that the said vehicle has been seized within 5 years from the date of sanction of loan as against the loan period extending upto 9 years from the date of sanction of loan alleging:-
That he obtained loan from OP. Agricultural subsidy of Rs.55,000/- and Rs.1,13,763/- have been received by the OP Bank towards the loan account and the balance as on 30.09.2009 is Rs.4,94,825/- and the vehicle has been seized on 21.09.2011. He was earning Rs.3,000/- per day by using the said vehicle. The Complainant issued notice to OP on 19.11.2011 to release the seized vehicle bearing No. KA-07/7713 & 7714 and as the OP has not complied, he has approached this Forum for the reliefs prayed for in the Complaint.
2. The OP on being served with summons appeared through Counsel and filed version contending that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the Complainant is not a consumer. Complainant had obtained two loans, one is KCC Group loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and Tractor loan of Rs.5,00,000/- as per loan sanction letter dtd. 10.10.2006 with the condition that OP will be the owner of the vehicle till the entire loan with interest is repaid OP is entitled to take possession on default in payment of loan installments. The Complainant is a defaulter as on 28.01.2012, he was due for Rs.5,37,381.36. OP further contended that OP is holding public funds and is entitled to seize the vehicle. Hence, OP prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
3. On perusal of the Complaint averments and version, the points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether the Complainant is a consumer coming within the purview of C.P. Act?
(B) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(C) To what relief/s the Complainant is entitled ?
4. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(A) Affirmative
(B) Negative
(C) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
5. Point No. A – It is seen from the documents that Complainant secured 2 loans, one is crop loan and other is vehicle loan. Crop loan is a short term loan and the vehicle loan is repayable in 16 half yearly installments of Rs.31,250/- each with start up period of 12 months. On perusal of the extract, it is seen that loan installments were not regularly paid and complainant is silent about the total amount paid towards loan account. The Complainant committed default and the outstanding due is Rs.5,37,381/- as on 28.01.2012. The OP issued pre-seizure notice to the Complainant on 02.09.2011 & 06.09.2011 and 15.11.2011. As the Complainant has not paid any amounts towards the loan, vehicle was seized on 21.09.2011 and pre-sale notice was issued on 15.11.2011 to the Complainant calling upon him to clear the dues on or before 30.11.2011 failing which the vehicle would be sold. The date of sale of vehicle and sale consideration are not forthcoming. The Complainant filed this Complaint on 20.12.2011.
6. The Complainant availed service of Bank by borrowing loan from OP Bank. As such, he comes within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act and this Forum has jurisdiction. Therefore, point No. 1 is held in the Affirmative.
7. Point No. B - The OP Bank issued 2 pre-seizure notices to the Complainant dtd. 02.09.2011 & 06.09.2011 in which reference was made to its earlier notice dtd. 12.01.2011 through which the Complainant was asked to regularize the Loan Account 30063361808. Therefore, the OP Bank through its pre-seizure notice dtd. 02.09.2011 & 06.09.2011 informed the Complainant that since he had failed to repay the Bank’s dues as advised to him in the notice, accordingly the Bank had decided to repossess the asset for the purchase of which the Complainant had availed the said loan. In this connection, the Bank had engaged the services of M/s. Raju Enterprises, Tractor seizing agents, Tamaka Indl. Area, Kolar, as Bank’s Recovery Agency to assist the Bank in taking all necessary steps for repossession / sale of the asset and the complainant was asked to co-operate with the authorized representatives of the Agency and on 21.09.2011 the vehicle was seized on 21.09.2011. After seizure, the OP sent final sale notice dtd. 15.11.2011 calling upon the Complainant to pay seizure charges of Rs.8,000/- incurred for repossession by its authorized agent and Rs.50/- per day for its storage. The Complainant was informed that if the Complainant fails to liquidate the loan outstanding amount, the repossessed vehicle would be sold / auctioned by the Bank before 30.11.2011. The Complainant sent a reply to this notice stating that the Tractor (seized by the OP on 21.09.2011) was the only source of livelihood of the Complainant and his family and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per day through Tractor and after seizure of the Tractor his family was thrown to the street. The Complainant further challenged the seizure as the loan period of 9 years for repayment had not expired. However, the Complainant is bound by the terms & conditions of the loan agreement he entered into with the OP. As per loan agreement, default in payment of one or more installments would empower the OP Bank to repossess the Tractor. The OP Bank has followed due process of Law in seizing the vehicle. The Complainant was given ample opportunity and time to repay and regularize the outstanding dues, but he failed to do so. As rightly contended by the OP, Bank being custodian of public fund, they can resort to repossession through authorized agency in order to recover outstanding dues from the borrowers. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. Therefore, point No. 2 is held in the negative.
8. Since Point No. 2 is held in negative, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed and hence we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. The Complaint is dismissed.
2. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3rd April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
