Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/11/2018

H.Rasool S/o Hussain Sab - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Indusland Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanaryanarao

06 Sep 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :29/01/2018

               DISPOSED ON:06/09/2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 11/2018 DATED:6th SEPTEMBER 2018

 

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :      PRESIDENT                             B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

                                   

COMPLAINANT/S

H.Rasool S/o Hussain Sab, Major, #43, Paramarahalli, Isamudra Post, Bharamasagara Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk,  Chitradurga District.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Branch Manager, Indusland Bank, #2153,1st Floor, Thippeswamy Complex, Bank India upstairs, JCR Extension Main road, Chitradurga.   2. The Authorized Signatory, Indus Ind Bank Limited, State Office,No.897,2nd Floor, Bull Temple road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore.   3. The Authorized Signatory, Indus Ind Bank Ltd. New No.34, old Nos.115&116, G.N.Chetty road,T.Nagar,Chennai-600017   (Rep by Smt/Sri.T.K.Champa,  Advocate)

 

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The complainant has been filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite parties to direct the OP No.1 to repay the installment amount and margin money, OP No.1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a, OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and torture and to grant such other reliefs.

 

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the RC owner of Tata Ace LGV vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-6953 bearing Engine No. 275IDI07KTYSA9871 and chassis No.MAT445552GZK36880, which was purchased by borrowing hand loans from his friends and relatives and also obtaining loan of Rs.3,54,000/- from OP No.1 for Rs.3,54,000/-.  The cost of the vehicle is of Rs.5,48,184/- and the above said vehicle has been hypothecated to OP No.1.  Further it is agreed to repay the above said loan within 15.12.2020 at monthly installment of Rs.12,320/-.  Accordingly, the complainant has paid three installments to OP No.1 from February 2017 to April-2017.  Due to stoppage of business and family inconvenience, the complainant became defaulter.  After that, the OP No.1 without following the procedure, seized the vehicle illegally without giving any notice and sold the same for a meager amount to somebody, the same is deficiency of service.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 14.12.2017 which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

   

  3.   After issuance of the notice to the OPs, OPs appeared through Smt. T.K. Champa, Advocate and filed their version. 

According to the version filed by OPs, the OPs have not violated any procedure as contemplated under law before seizing the vehicle.  The OP No.1 has issued seizing notice to the complainant.  After servicing of the notice, the OPs have seized the vehicle and further the averments stated in the complaint are false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  After seizing the vehicle, the OP No.1 has sold the same and remitted the amount to the complainant’s account and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to A-3 and closed his side.  OP No.1 to 3 have examined one Sri. K.B. Guru, Legal Officer of OPs as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-5 documents and closed their side. 

 

5. Heard the arguments.

 

6.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

 

Point No.1:-Whether the OPs have followed the procedure before selling the vehicle and intimated the same to the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        7. Our findings on the above points are as follows.

        Point No.1:-Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:-It is not in dispute that, the complainant is the RC owner of Tata Ace LGV vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-6953 by obtaining loan from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.3,54,000/- agreeing to repay the loan in installments at Rs.12,320/-.  The cost of the vehicle is of Rs.5,48,184/- and the above said vehicle has been hypothecated to OP No.1.  Accordingly, the complainant has paid three installments from February 2017 to April 2017 in all a sum of Rs. 34,960/-.  Thereafter, the complainant has not paid the installments to the OP No.1 due to stoppage of business and personal inconvenience.  After that the OP No.1 has issued notice to the complainant demanding to pay the installments.  By that time also, the complainant has not paid any amount but, he has given letter requesting to provide some time to pay the installment amount.  But, the OP No.1 without sanctioning or giving any time to the complainant, forcibly seized the vehicle.  After seizing of the vehicle, the OP No.1 has not followed any procedure as contemplated under law and sold the vehicle for a meager amount.  After selling the vehicle, the OP No.1 never intimated the complainant as to how much amount has been remitted to the loan account of the complainant or whether the complainant is entitled for remaining amount.  The OPs have not intimated the auction sale amount and they have acted as a King i.e., oppose to natural justice.  When the finance company seized the vehicle, it is the duty of the company to intimate the complainant to take back the vehicle within fifteen days from the date of seizing the vehicle by remitting the entire loan amount or installment due amount.  In this case, the OP No.1 has not done so and it is purely a deficiency of service on the part of OPs and negligence.  The complainant has purchased the vehicle for his livelihood, the entire family is depending upon the earnings of the above said vehicle.  As per the exhibits, it clearly shows that, the OPs have committed deficiency of service.     

 

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the parties, it clearly shows that, the complainant has purchased the above said vehicle by obtaining loan from OP No.1.  No doubt, the complainant has agreed to repay the loan amount to the OP No.1 in monthly installments.  The complainant has paid three installments i.e., from February 2017 to April 2017.  Thereafter, the complainant failed to pay the installments because of stoppage of business and personal inconvenience.  The complainant himself has voluntarily approached the OP No.1 and gave letter requesting to provide some more time to repay the due installments.  But, the OP No.1 refused to sanction time to pay the installments.  The OP No.1 forcibly seized the vehicle and thereafter has issued the notice to the complainant demanding to pay the entire amount within 15 days from the date of service of the notice.  Whether it is possible to pay the entire amount within 15 days when the complainant is under financial problem.  The OP No.1 has not followed the procedure and after seizing the vehicle, how much amount has been collected in a public auction is not known and further they never intimated that whether the amount has been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant or not and whether the complainant is entitled for remaining amount after adjusting the loan amount.  Hence, the OPs have committed deficiency of service and OPs have cheated the public and poor people. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as affirmative. 

 

10.   Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

 

It is ordered that the OPs are hereby directed to return the margin amount of Rs.49,474/- and three installment of Rs.36,960/- in all a sum of Rs.86,434/- along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

 

(This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 06/09/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signature)

 

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainants:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- K.B. Guru, Legal Officer by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Payment schedule
02	Ex-A-2:-	Notice dated 27.07.2017
03	Ex-A-3:-	3 Payment receipts

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Inventory of asset
02	Ex-B-2:-	Letter dated 27.07.2017 by the OPs
03	Ex-B-3:-	Postal receipt
04	Ex.B-4:-	Letter dated 01.07.2018 by the OPs
05	Ex.B-5:-	Loan agreement

 

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.