The Manager, Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd V/S Venkataswamy S/o Narayanappa, Aged About 30 Years
Venkataswamy S/o Narayanappa, Aged About 30 Years filed a consumer case on 04 Aug 2010 against The Manager, Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd in the Bangalore 4th Additional Consumer Court. The case no is CC/2010/131 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Bangalore 4th Additional
CC/2010/131
Venkataswamy S/o Narayanappa, Aged About 30 Years - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Manager, Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd - Opp.Party(s)
M.Murthy Kumar
04 Aug 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN,Ph:22352624 No:8, 7th floor, Sahakara bhavan, Cunningham road, Bangalore- 560052. consumer case(CC) No. CC/2010/131
Venkataswamy S/o Narayanappa, Aged About 30 Years
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager, Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd The Manager, HDFC Bank
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Anita Shivakumar. K 2. Ganganarsaiah 3. Sri D.Krishnappa
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
O R D E R SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT: The grievance of the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that he borrowed a loan of Rs.45,000/- from the first Op for purchase of a motor bike on 10/01/2006 agreeing to repay the loan amount in 36 monthly installments of Rs.1,588/- each per installment. He has paid 27 installments regularly upto 10/02/2008 paid Rs.4,770/- on 25/02/2008, Rs.1,578/- on 10/03/2008 plus Rs.1,000/- plus Rs.1,508/- on 29/03/2008 and he has paid excess of agreed 33 installments and is due less than three installments. That Op No.1 has amolgated with Op No.2 without any notice illegally seized his vehicle inspite of he was ready and willing to pay the balance amount which was less than three installments but the second Op refused to receive the balance and to release the vehicle. That he also got issued a legal notice on 04/07/2009 informing Op No.2 to release the vehicle after accepting the balance amount but Op refused to do so. Therefore, alleging that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service has prayed for release of his vehicle and to award damages of Rs.50,000/-. 2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, denying that complainant had borrowed loan of Rs.45,000/- have stated that loan amount of Rs.47,106/- was sanctioned to the complainant repayable in 36 EMIs of Rs.1,588/- each. It is further contended that the allegations of the complainant that he has paid 27 installments regularly up to 10/02/2008 as false, admitted that Op No.1 is amolgated with Op No.2 and contended that complainant ought to have paid all the 36 EMIs commencing from 30/11/2005 and ended on 10/01/2006. The complainant was a defaulter in payment of EMIs and several cheques issued by him were bounced. As evident from the statement of account produced when the complainant became due he forfeited his right over the vehicle and vehicle was seized in accordance with law under the agreement. Further contended when the complainant failed to discharge his liability, vehicle was seized with an inventory by exercising their right of repossessing the vehicle in case of default, sufficient opportunities were given to the complainant to discharge his liability and pre-sale notice was also issued to the complainant on 24/04/2009 and even then complainant when did not respond to their call and finally when the complainant expressed his inability to pay, the vehicle was sold to the highest price and therefore, denying any deficiency at their end have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Power of Attorney Holder of Op No.2 have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with complaint has produced an account extract of his loan account, copy of pass book and receipts for having paid certain amount in cash with copy of inventory prepared by Ops and a copy of the legal notice he got issued to Op No.2. OP No.2 has produced loan account extract of the complainant, copy of the inventory and pre-sale notice given to the complainant on 24/04/2009. We have heard the counsel for both sides in brief and counsel for both parties have also filed written arguments. 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise. 1. Whether the complainant proves that Op No.2 has caused deficiency in his service in illegally seizing the vehicle despite an offer to repay the entire over due amount. 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to? 5. Our findings are as under: Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : See the final order REASONS 6. Answer on point No.1: As we seen from the pleadings of the parties, the complainant has not denied having had received Rs.47,106/- as loan from the Ops. Though the complainant has contended that he has paid 27 installments regularly without any default but the loan account extract of the complainant maintained by the second Op produced by both of them prove that several cheques given by the complainant towards EMI bounced attracting over due charges and even bouncing charges. The second Op has also in this regard denied the claim of the complainant in he having had paid 27 installments regularly. The complainant has not controverted the account extract produced by the Op. Even in the extract of account produced by the complainant we find that several cheques given by the complainant towards EMI were bounced attracting bouncing and over due charges, we therefore find no merits in the allegations of the complainant that he has paid 27 EMIs regularly. 7. The complainant himself in the complaint has admitted he was due less than 3 installments. In the prayer column he has stated as if he was due of 3 to 4 installments. Thus the complainant himself is not sure as how many installments had become over due. Besides this, the complainant though has alleged and he was ready and willing to pay the balance amount but the Op No.2 refused to receive them. But he has not produced any documents in he having had offered to pay the balance amount and get the vehicle released. The second Op admittedly when the complainant became over due as per the terms of the agreement stated to had repossessed the vehicle on 24/03/2009 under an inventory. The complainant when did not come forward to pay the balance amount and to get the vehicle released was issued with pre-sale notice by Op No.2 on 24/04/2009, even for that also the complainant did not respond. But the complainant did not woke up until 04/07/2009 till he got the legal notice issued stating that he was ready and willing to pay the balance amount. But even then the complainant did not show his earnestness in repaying the balance amount and to get the vehicle released. Therefore, the Op it is found thereafter when the complainant did not respond to the pre-sale notice also having no option stated to have sold the vehicle to the highest price and thereby has denied any deficiency in the service. The counsel appearing for the Op by relying upon the decisions of Honble National Commission reported in II (2010) CPJ page 163 submitted that the Op has not caused any deficiency and the complaint is not maintainable. In this decision, the National Commission has held that for non-payment of the loan amount, the Financer under hire purchase agreement has right to repossess the vehicle in case of default in repayment of loan and when the vehicle is not proof to have been repossess forcibly, the act would not amounts to deficiency. In the case on hand, we find that the Op No.2 by exercising his right under the hire purchase agreement on default of the complainant in repayment of the loan seized the vehicle and even sold it after pre-sale notice which cannot be called as deficient act. As such, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order. O R D E R Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 4th August 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
......................Anita Shivakumar. K ......................Ganganarsaiah ......................Sri D.Krishnappa
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.