Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/79/2021

Sri.R.Sathyanarayana Reddy S/o Rangappa Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri.R.K.Govindaraju

04 Oct 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:14/09/2021

DISPOSED      ON:04/10/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:79/2021

DATED: ^4th  October 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA. B.A., LL.B.,    PRESIDENT

 

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.Com., LL.B.,         MEMBER       

                     Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B.,        MEMBER

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. R. Sathyanarayana Reddy, S/o Rangappa Reddy, Aged about 50 years, R/o Guddada Rangavvanahalli, Chitradurga Taluk and District Pin-577 502. (Rep., by Sri.R.K. Govindaraju, Advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	The Branch Manager, Karnatka Grameena Bank, Guddada Rangavvanahalli, Chitradurga Taluk and District. The area Manager, Karnatka Grameena Bank, Area Office, IUDP Layout, Chitradurga City. The General Manager, Karnatka Grameena Bank, Sanganakallu Road, Bellary-583101.

 

BY SMT. H.N. MEENA, PRESIDENT.

-: ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT:-

          The complainant has filed this complaint against Op’s 1,2 and 3 and pray s before this Commission to direct Ops to  pay damage amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- along with 12% interest, p.a., Rs. 40,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

Facts of the complaint:-

       Complainant barrowed a loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 14/02/2014 by the Ops for the purpose of purchase of Mahindra Maxi Cab which is for Commercial use and the  complainant had executed on demand promissory note in favour of Op Bank. Further the complainant agreed to repay the entire loan with up to date interest within 5 years, (i.e., February 2019) Rs. 8,330/- each per month the complainant executed hypothecation of the Mahindra Maxi Cab in favour of OP Bank and the same was noted before RTO, Chitradurga.

       The complainant is the RC owner of the above said vehicle bearing Regd., No. KA-16-B-9904 and permit to run the vehicle throughout Karnataka earning a sum of Rs. 1,100/- per day excluding fuel, wear and tear.     

       Further above said vehicle while it was running it was seized, by Op No.1, Op No.1 have not revealed the fact regarding where about of the vehicle. The complaint many time visited and requested the Bank authorities for release of the same by receiving overdue amount, if it is overdue. The complaint stated that till today the Op.1 has neither issued notice to the complainant nor regarding the seizure and where about the vehicle. Even after seizing,  the Authority has to intimate the matter of seizure and later on has to follow the further proceedings available for hypothecated vehicle.

       The complainant stated that till today no intimation to the complainant or not published the same in newspaper for sale of seizing vehicle, the Ops are kept quite beyond the limitation of the seizure.

       The complainant issued legal notice through his counsel to the Ops on 17/12/2020, the same was served the Ops on 18/12/2020, in-spite of service of notice the Ops neither replied to the said notice nor settle the damages.  Hence the cause of action for arising filing this complaint as on 18/12/2020 when the legal notice served to the Ops and complaint is filed within the limitation.

Observations:-

        The counsel for the complainant has addressed argument to pass the appropriate order against Op’s as prayed in the complaint. We have perused the complaint and the documents produced by the complainant. The complainant approached Op No.1 for the financial assistance to purchase the Mahindra Maxi Cab on 14/02/2014 the Ops sanctioned loan of Rs. 3,80,000/- for the purpose of the purchase the Mahindra Maxi Cab. The complainant executed on demand Promissory Note in favour of bank. Further the complainant agreed to repay the entire loan amount with up to date interest within 5 years, (Feb-2019) for Rs. 8,330/- per month. Complainant executed hypothecation of the Mahindra Maxi Cab vehicle in favour of Bank and said hypothecation was noted before the RTO Office, Chitradurg. The complaint is filed by the complainant for claiming of balance amount of Rs. 4,95,000/-. On perusal of the bank statement it is observed that Ops have issued loan reminder on 14/06/2016, 21/02/2017 also notice charge paid to seizing agent on 15/11/2017, loan notice charges debited on 26/02/2019 loan reminder charges debited on 30/09/2019 RTF charges on 04/02/2020 debited on 12/02/2020 seizer expenses 2019 -20 dated 10/01/2020 debited on 13/03/2020 and legal notice charges dated 19/02/2020 are all the entries  disclosed that to Ops have issued notices to the complainant from time to time and also debited the amount the same facts are suppressed by the complainant and filed this complaint to get undue advantage from Ops.

       The complainant filed this complaint after a lapse of 2 years only on the ground of issue of legal notice to Ops on 18/12/2020 and considering the said date for limitation which is barred by the Law. As reported in CPR-2017 page No.527, the Hon’ble National Commission clearly cited that, no relief can be given on a time barred complaint. And in another Citation reported in CPR 2020 (3) page-140, the  Hon’ble National Commission, as observed in a case Petitioner Prem Devi V/s Delhi Development Authority, which reveals no amount of Correspondence made between parties can enhance the limitation period for filing complaint.  In another  citation of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi page No. 510 CPR 2017  it is very clear that Commercial users can’t maintain Consumer complaint: Hire purchase :- Irregular payment of instalments repossession and auction of vehicle NC (843) TATA Engineer and Locomotive Company Limited V/s Nathu N.C 384  Banking and Financial Service. Limitation by giving subsequent notices limitation can’t be extended. When complaint is barred by the limitation, merits of the case can’t be considered. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.

 Hence as discussed above, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission on limitation and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission for adjudication on limitation and maintainability, hence the same is hereby rejected.

 

Lady Member                     Member               President

Kms.