DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st day of August, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President (I/C)<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.106/2006<br /> <br /> Chamikutty,<br /> S/o.Chamy,<br /> Cholayil House,<br /> Kandamangalam,<br /> Mannarkkad. - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> 1.The General Manager,<br /> IndusInd Bank,<br /> Corporate Office,<br /> sudrasan Building 92 (Old No.86),<br /> Chamiers Road,<br /> Chennai – 600 018<br /> <br /> 2.The Manager,<br /> IndusInd Bank,<br /> BPL Junction,<br /> Chandranagar, Palakkad - Opposite parties <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Prof.O.Unnirksihnan, President (I/C)<br /> <br /> Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant herein, to buy a Bajaj Boxer motor cycle, has entered into a hire purchase agreement on 9.5.2005 with Ashok Leyland Finance, which is a finance division of the opposite parties. As per the condition of the agreement it is agreed that the complainant shall repay the amount in installments and the said hire purchase was endorsed in the R.C. Book of the <br /> <br /> vehicle bearing Regn. No.KL9 Q 1895. The complainant submits that he met with a vehicle accident due to which he was seriously injured and bedridden for quite some time. But later on 22.12.2005 the complainant settled and cleared the entire loan amount along with interest and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd opposite party as per receipt No.239773 dtd.22.12.2005 in which it was endorsed as account closed. The complainant alleges that the opposite party, despite of repeated requests, refused to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the R.C.Book and also return the original of the R.C.Book. It is further alleged that the complainant personally and his representatives approached the 2nd opposite party several times but he has turned down to their requests by uttering lame excuses and thus harassing the complainant and putting him to great hardship. The complainant also submits that after accepting the full loan amount with interest the opposite parties are bound to endorse the cancellation of the hire purchase agreement in the R.C.book and to return the original RC book to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the aforesaid act of the 2nd opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that the opposite parties are also liable to compensate the complainant for the financial loss and hardship suffered by him solely due to the action of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complainant states that he was completely bedridden by the accident and was not in a position to ride or use the motor cycle since the hire purchase endorsement in the RC book has not been cancelled. The complainant was forced to sell out his vehicle for a lower price and hence to incur huge financial loss. It is also submitted that he has settled the loan by arranging money loans from many persons and different agencies. Under the aforementioned circumstances they are liable to compensate for financial loss, mental agony and hardships caused to him by their actions. Feeling <br /> <br /> aggrieved the complainant approached this forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to cancel the Hire purchase endorsement in the RC book of the Motor cycle KL9 Q 1895 and also to return the original RC book to the complainant, and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for the mental and physical agony, trauma and also for the loss and hardship suffered by the complainant and other reliefs which the forum find fit and proper to grant.<br /> <br /> After admitting the complainant, notice was issued to opposite parties for their appearance and version. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. 1st opposite party states they have adopted the contentions raised by the 2nd opposite party in their version and requested to accept the said contentions and dismiss the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> 2nd opposite party in their version submits that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.25,500/- from them for purchasing the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KL9 Q1895 and the loan amount was to be repaid in 12 monthly instalments of Rs.2,754/- each by hypothecating the said motor cycle. According to 2nd opposite party while availing the loan the complainant had signed and delivered the necessary documents. 2nd opposite party denied the allegation that the complainant had entered into hire purchase agreement with Ashok Leyland Finance. The 2nd opposite party further contented that as per the condition of the agreement it was agreed that the complainant shall repay the amount in instalments and the said hire purchase was endorsed in the RC book of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL Q1895 was also not correct and hence denied. It is stated in the version that the complainant had <br /> only hypothecated the vehicle with them and not entered into a hire purchase agreement as stated in the complaint. 2nd opposite party averred that six of <br /> <br /> the complainant's cheques were returned unpaid and the matter was intimated to the complainant at several times and also requested him to pay the installments so as to avoid legal action. But the complainant's representative had approached them on 22.12.2005 and closed the loan account. They submit that as soon as the entire amount received, they had forwarded the closure note to IndusInd Bank, Madras. After completing all formalities, this opposite party received the documents on 27.2.2006. On receipt of the same, the complainant was intimated to come and collect the papers after giving acknowledgment. But it is alleged in the version that one representative of the complainant approached them and demanded back the documents. But they were not willing to hand over the same to the representative as he did not have produced any authorisation to receive the said documents from them. The 2nd opposite party further alleges that he was threatened by the representative and thereafter the representative went out of their office. Opposite party further submits that even though the they had been willing to hand over the documents from 27.2.2006 onwards the complainant had not contacted them till the date of filing version. It is also stated that there has been no willful latches on their part in returning the documents. 2nd opposite party averred that the complainant was not entitled for any compensation and the amount claimed was without any basis. The documents were not returned due to the latches on the part of the complainant. It is prayed to accept their contentions and to dismiss the complaint of the complainant accordingly with costs.<br /> <br /> Both parties filed affidavits and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of complainant.<br /> <br /> It is true that complainant had availed loan of Rs.25,000/- on 9.5.2005 <br /> <br /> from the opposite parties by hypothecating a Bajaj Boxer motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL9 Q1895. The opposite parties in their affidavits admitted that the said loan was closed on 22.12.2005(Ext.A2). It is also an admitted fact that all the relevant papers were received to the 2nd opposite party's office from Chennai office on 27.02.2005 itself. From the order sheet it is very clear that the 2nd opposite party has produced the R.C book, duplicate keys, NOC etc on 14.08.2006 before this Forum and also produced the two blank cheques of the complainant on 20.10.2006. But we are not in a position to admit the argument of the 2nd opposite party that they were not willing to hand over the R.C book and relevant papers to a representative of the complainant as he did have shown any authorisation to the said records from them. We cannot understand that what was prevented them from sending the records directly to the complainant. We are of the view that the 2nd opposite party might to have sent records to the complainant by registered parcel when the representative of the complainant did not have produced the required authorisation letter from the complainant. 2nd opposite party has failed to produce any relevant records to prove that the said matter was intimated to the complainant in time. It is also noticed that we have directed the 2nd opposite party to affix their seal in the NOC forms on 29.09.2006 as evident from the order sheet.<br /> <br /> In view of the facts set forth above, we are inclined to attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result the complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> We direct 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards <br /> mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant along with a cost of <br /> <br /> Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order failing which the complainant is entitled to get the whole amount plus interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of August, 2007 <br /> <br /> President (I/C) (Sd)<br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> <br /> Appendix<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant<br /> Ext.A1 – Copy of RC book<br /> Ext.A2 – Receipt dtd.22/12/2005<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Nil<br /> Costs (allowed)<br /> Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) allowed as costs to the complainant <br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order, <br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent