DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st day of January 2011

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 30/10/2008

(C.C.No. 111/2008)

T.Santhosh

S/o.Sasidharan

Adiyarath House

Post Puthur,

Palakkad – 678 001 - Complainant

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)

V/s

1.The General Manager

The Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd

Regd.Office, Santha Durga

Niwas, MG Road, Panaji,

Goa – 403 001.

2.The Branch Manager

The Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd

Suharsha Towers

House No.PPM E 25/3/32

Ground Floor, Shornur Road,

Thrissur – 680 001

3.Office in charge of Centurion

Bank of Punjab Ltd

Collection Centre. Adjacent to

One and all service (office)

Sreevalsam Building, Civil Station,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.Paulochan Antory & K.A.Kailas)

4.Adithya Auto Sales

18/734, Yakkara Road,

Palakkad – 678 014

(By Adv.P.R.Hariharan)

5.Branch Manager

HDFC Bank Ltd., Trichur

6.Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd.

Chandra Nagar, Palakkad - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt. SEENA H, PRESIDENT

Brief case of the complainant:

Complainant availed a vehicle loan for purchase of a Hero Honda Glamour plus motorcycle from opposite party. Vehicle was purchased from 4^th opposite party. Loan amount of Rs.18675/ has to be repaid with EMI of Rs.1260/ for 18 months. As per the request of opposite party and by way of security complainant has handed over the duplicate key of the vehicle along with 18 post dated cheques drawn from Indian Bank Palakkad. The entire loan amount was paid. H.P. was terminated and NOC was also given. The grievance of the complainant is that after the termination of H.P, opposite parties has not returned the post dated cheques and duplicate key handed over to them. Inspite of several requests also opposite parties are not ready to return the same. Complainant further submits that it is impossible to sell the bike without a duplicate key. Complainant had to spend Rs.5000/ to manufacture a duplicate key. Apart from that complainant apprehends misuse of the post dated cheques by the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order for return of the blank cheques and duplicate key from the opposite parties and also for compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

The version of opposite parties 1 to 3 is as follows:

1^st Opposite party admits the agreement with the complainant. Payment of the whole amount and termination of HP is also admitted. According to opposite parties the opposite party bank has no practice of collecting duplicate key and blank cheques at the time of issuance of loan. In the present case also opposite party has not collected the duplicate key or blank cheques from the complainant. Further opposite party has raised a technical aspect that complainant is filed against the opposite party in their personal capacity and bank is not made a party. Opposite parties contented that complainant has never approached the opposite parties claiming blank cheques and duplicate key. According to 2^nd opposite party complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Opposite parties 1 to 3 has raised a technicality that opposite parties 1 to 3 has been amalgamated with HDFC Bank Ltd. and accordingly authorities of HDFC Bank was impleaded as Supplementary 5 & 6. Supplementary 5 & 6 also filed version in tune with OP 1 to 3.

The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of the affidavit and Ext.A1 to A.5 Opposite parties has filed their respective affidavit.

Now the issues that arise for our consideration are

1. Whether the act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part

2. If so, what is the relief & costs complainant is entitled to ?

Issue 1 & 2

Heard both parties and gone through the entire evidence on record.

It is seen that facts of the case are more or less admitted. Hire Purchase agreement, payment of the whole amount, termination of HP agreement and issuance of NOC is not disputed. We find that the only question to be decided is whether opposite party is in possession of blank cheques and duplicate key alleged to be handed over to opposite party by the complainant at the time of HP agreement.

There is no concrete evidence on record to show that complainant has handed over the duplicate key and blank cheques to opposite parties. But we do not find any reason to disbelieve the say of the complainant in the affidavit also. Private financial institutions will never enter into an agreement without safeguarding their interest. Hire purchase agreement is a sort of bailment wherein the hirer becomes the owner only on payment of the last instalment. As per Sec 18 of the Hire Purchase Act 1972, the owner has the right to terminate hire purchase agreement for default in payment of hire or unauthorized act or breach of express contract. On termination of the agreement owner become entitled to seize the goods. We are of the view that this right can only be exercised with the help of duplicate key. Further it is a practice adopted by the Private financial institutions to safeguard their interest. The above stated facts and circumstances of the case will give an inference that the complainant has handed over the duplicate key and blank cheques to opposite parties. Non return of the same even after closure of the loan amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

During the pendency of the proceedings opposite parties 1 to 3 has contented that they have amalgamated with HDFC Bank Ltd. Accordingly supplementary opposite party 5 & 6 was impleaded. So the liability of opposite parties 1 to 3 is now upon supplementary opposite parties 5 & 6. 4^th opposite party being the dealer is exonerated from any liability.

In the result complaint allowed. Supplementary opposite parties 5 & 6 is directed to return the duplicate key and blank cheques to the complainant alongwith a compensation of Rs.2500/- and Rs.1000/- as cost of proceedings within a month from the date of receipt of order failing which complainant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.7500/ as compensation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of January 2011

Sd/-

Smt.Seena H

President

Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

APPENDIX

Exhihbits marked on the side of the complaint

Ext.A1 – Copy of Certificate of Registration of vehicle

Ext.A2 – Copy of Notice of Termination of an agreement of Hire Purchase

in Form 35.

Ext.A3 – Lr. to RTO Palakkad from Centurion Bank of Punjab intimating cancellation

of hypothication

Ext.A4 – Pass Book of Indian Bank

Ext.A5 – Cheque of Indian Bank

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.1000/ allowed as cost of proceedings.