DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

₌₌₌

Jai Chand Rana son of Sh.Teg Singh Rana r/o V&PO Barwala, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

    ---Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1.  The H.D.F.C.Bank Limited through its General Manager, Retail Asset Collection, Trade View, Ground Floor, Oasis Compound, 130 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Mumbai-400013

2.  The H.D.F.C.Bank Limited through its Branch Manager, at Retail Asset Collection, SCO No.76-77, 1^st Floor, Sector-8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160018.

                      ---Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.P.D.GOEL,                    PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL,            MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Nitin Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant availed loan of Rs.3.40 lacs vide loan account No.2889237 against the lump sum interest of Rs.88,400/-.  The said loan was to be repaid in 36 EMI of Rs.11900/- each. Due to recession in the business, the complainant could not repay six installments regularly but he paid Rs.3,66,492/- till October, 2009. The complainant averred that on 02.06.2010, two unknown persons alleging themselves to be employees of OPs took the forcibly possession of the vehicle. The complainant made a request to travel in the vehicle/car as he has to perform rituals and rites of some relation. They allowed the complainant to go by car, when he agreed to give in writing and signed the blank documents at Tata Motors, Jawalapur.

         The complainant averred that the OPs did not allow him to take the necessary documents and other articles i.e. two blank cheques, sales tax form No.C, Rc of the car, insurance etc. from the vehicle in question. As per the complainant, the musclemen of the OPs also snatched Rs.5000/- from him.  The complainant alleged that due to the aforesaid act of OPs, he has to suffer mental agony and harassment in front of his relatives. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Police authority for taking the action against the musclemen of the OPs but to no effect.  That OPs issued a legal notice dated 02.06.2010 (Annexure C-36) requiring him to pay Rs.1,11,771/- without any calculations. According to the complainant, the aforesaid acts, omission and commission on the part the OPs amount  to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.

2.      OPs filed their joint written statement and admitted with regard to the advancement of the loan of Rs.4,28,000/- towards the used car. It has been pleaded that the complainant was not in a position to the repay the loan amount of Rs.1,06,652/- as on 31.03.2011 and therefore, he opted to surrender the vehicle to the representatives of the Bank. It has further been pleaded that at the time of delivering the possession of the vehicle, the complainant was liable to pay six installments along with other overdue charges. It has been pleaded that  the complainant has failed to pay the outstanding dues and therefore, he could not take back the possession of the vehicle. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that the possession of the vehicle has been given by him on account of his failure to clear the outstanding dues and therefore, there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.       The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant availed loan of   Rs. 3.40 lacs with lump sum interest, which was to be repaid in 36 EMI of Rs.11,900/- each. It was argued that the complainant could not repay six installments regularly and could pay Rs.3,66,492/- till October, 2009. That two unknown persons – musclemen alleging themselves to be the employees of OPs took the forcible possession of the vehicle along with two blank cheques, sales tax form No.C, RC of the car, insurance and Rs.5,000/-.

6.       On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the OPs outrightly conceded with regard to advancement of the loan of Rs.4,28,000/-. It was submitted that the complainant was not in a position to repay the loan amount of Rs.1,06,652/- as on 31.3.2011, so he opted to surrender the vehicle in question to the representatives of the bank. It was further submitted that at the time of delivering the possession of the vehicle, the complainant was liable to pay six installments along with other overdue charges. The complainant has failed to repay the outstanding dues, so he could not took back the possession of the vehicle.

7.       The admitted facts of the case may be noticed thus :-

a)       That the complainant availed the loan of Rs.3,40,000/-, which was to be repaid in 36 EMI   of   Rs.11,900/-    each.

b)       That     the complainant could not repay six installments, so made a default in payment of the regular installments.

8.       Now the only point which calls decision from this Fora is whether the musclemen of the OPs forcibly snatched the vehicle in question from the complainant. The answer to this is in the negative.

9.       The complainant has placed on record the surrender letter dated 2.6.2010 – Annexure C-31 and its careful scrutiny makes it clear that the complainant – borrower had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle Tata Indigo bearing No. HR-03-F-4871 to the HDFC Bank Limited – OPs. It is also a fact that document - Annexure C-31, referred to above, has been placed on record by the complainant himself, therefore, it can legitimately be concluded that the complainant himself has surrendered the vehicle, which proves that the OPs have not used any force. Thus, it is a case where the complainant himself has surrendered the vehicle in question, therefore, it can legitimately be concluded that the musclemen of the OPs has not taken forcible possession of the vehicle, nor it was forcibly repossessed by the OPs.   Rather, it is a case where there is a voluntary surrender of the vehicle by the complainant himself.

10.      The complainant has alleged in the complaint that the musclemen of the OPs had taken the forcible possession of the vehicle along with two blank cheques, sales tax form No.C, RC of the Car, insurance and Rs.5,000/-. The perusal of Annexure C-31 makes it further clear that there was no jewellary, cash or any valuable article in the vehicle, when it was so surrendered by the complainant to the OPs. The matter does not rest here The complainant has also not produced any evidence to prove the said claim. Therefore, it is held that the allegations made by the complainant with regard to forcible possession of the vehicle along with two blank cheques, sales tax form No.C, RC of the car, insurance and Rs.5,000/- are false.

11.      The OPs have made an application during the course of the proceedings that the direction be issued to the complainant to take back the possession of the vehicle, after payment of the complete outstanding dues. In view of this application, it is held that the OPs are ready to give the possession of the vehicle in question to the complainant on payment of complete outstanding dues. Thus, there is no need to go in further details of the matter on merits.

12.      The learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant could not repay six installments out of 36 EMI of Rs.11,900/- each, as such, he is ready to pay Rs.71,294/- to the OPs. He further argued that on payment of the amount of Rs.71,294/-, the direction be issued to the OPs to deliver the possession of the vehicle. He made a specific reference to para No.4 of the reply wherein, the OPs have stated that the complainant has been repeatedly asked to pay the amount of Rs.1,06,652/-.

13.      Vide para No.4 of the reply, referred to above, the OPs have stated that the amount of Rs.71,294/- is due on account of pending installments and the amount of Rs.28,452/- has been included on account of late penalty charges, Rs.6906/- on account of cheque bouncing charges and in toto Rs.1,06,652/-. The OPs have not produced any evidence on the file to prove that the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.28,452/- on account of late payment penalty charges and Rs.6906/- on account of cheque bouncing charges. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is only liable to pay the amount of Rs.71,294/- on account of pending installments along with interest, as agreed upon between the parties. However, the learned Counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments also agreed that the OPs are ready to deliver the possession of the vehicle in question to the complainant on payment of complete outstanding dues along with interest.

14.      As a result of the above discussion, the complainant is directed to make the payment of complete outstanding dues along with interest as per terms and conditions of loan account No.2889237 executed between the parties and,thereafter, the OPs are directed to give the possession of the vehicle in road worthy condition forthwith to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.

15.     The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.