DOF.5.5.2010

DOO.9.11.2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 9^th  day of  November      2010

CC.No.122 /2010

Joonus.K.P, “Julaina Manzil’,

 Thaliyil,

P.O.Kannur University Campus,

Kannur.

(Rep. by Adv.M.Govindankutty)                                    Complainant

Manager,

HDFC Bank,

(Former Centurion Bank of Punjab)

Ground Floor,

Majestic Centre,

By-pass Road,

Kozhikode 4.                                             Opposite parties

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to return the RC and Hypothecation termination letter with a sum of

`10, 000 as compensation.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant purchased the vehicle KL.13/P.5358 by availing loan from Centurion Bank of Punjab presently HDFC Bank.  At the time of availing loan opposite party bank obtained several signed securities, blank stamped receipts and blank stamp papers together with 36 post dated chques from the complainant for `1,666/- each. Complainant cleared the entire loan liability. But the original RC and other documents are still with the opposite party. Meanwhile HDFC Bank had been taken over by the centurian Bank of Punjab. Complainant requested the opposite party in person to give the original RC of the vehicle with Hypothecation Termination letter. Opposite party at first asked to pay `2, 242/- more to the opposite party since one cheque   issued in the month of August 2006 for `1666/- was returned unpaid. After negotiation amount was settled to `2066/- and complainant paid the same on 12.8.2006 and it was received by the officer in charge of Accounts Mr. Rajesh. While receiving the amount he was told that the RC and hypothecation termination letter will be returned within a day or two. But it has not been returned. Complainant sent lawyer notice on 4.4.09 calling upon to return the RC and Hypothecation letter within 15 days. But opposite party did not take care to reply the notice. To his surprise on 11.6.2009 the opposite party caused to send a notice calling upon him to pay an amount of `3, 320.09 to the opposite party within 5 days. A detailed reply to the untenable contentions was send and demanded to return the original RC and Hypothecation termination letter. Though complainant waited they only send again a notice on 25.2.2010 calling upon the complainant to pay   ` 3, 608.10 within 5 days. No amount is due by him. There is valid receipt for the payment. All the contentions raised in the said notice are false and hence this complaint.

          Though notice served properly opposite party did not take care to appear and conduct the case. Subsequently opposite party was called absent and set exparte.                   

 The main question to be answered is whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party and if so what the relief the complainant is entitled for ?

          Complainant filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination. It is in tune with the pleadings. The main case of complainant is that opposite party has not returned RC with hypothecation Termination letter even after clearing entire dues. Complainant produced and marked documents Exts.A1 to A6 in order to prove his case. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the Centurion Bank of Punjab for an amount of `1666 +400 (Rupees 2066) on 11.8.2006. Complainant pleaded in affidavit and evidence that on negotiation an amount of `2066/- was settled between parties and complainant paid the amount. It is pertinent to note that opposite party has not raised any question of dues at the time when the settled amount was paid. Even after paying the amount the opposite party did not return the original RC with hypothecation termination letter. Complainant sent lawyer notice Ext.A2 dt.4.4.09 calling upon to return the RC with hypothecation termination letter. Notice contained the details of payment for which Ext.A1 receipt was issued and stated that since he had cleared the entire loan liability due opposite party is bound to release the original R.C with H.P cancellation letter. Ext.A3 acknowledgement proves that the notice was sent to opposite party. Complainant adduced evidence by  means of chief affidavit that the opposite party did not sent any reply to Ext.A2 notice but on 11.6.09 opposite party sent a notice demanding to pay ` 3320/- within 5 days. Complainant further states that it was replied on 24.6.09 with requesting to return the original RC and hypothecation termination letter but on 25.2.2010 opposite party sent another notice demanding to pay  ` 3608.10. Complainant alleges that this is unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party.

          The opposite party did not appear before the Forum. Opposite party did not even filed version. Being a leading financial institution the non appearance is something that indicates they have no ground to defend themselves. There is no reason to disbelieve the complainant. The circumstances reveal that there are substances in the allegation of complainant.  Ext.A1 receipt shows that `2066/- was paid on 11.8.06. Ext.A3 proves that complainant has sent Ext.A2 notice dated 4.4.2009 in which everything that he has pleaded has been stated. Ext.A4 dated 11.6.2009 did not mentioned anything about Ext.A1 payment but call upon to pay `3320/- as liability. Complainant’s reply dated 24.6.09 proves that complainant has replied to Ext.A4 and also demanded to return the RC and Hire purchase termination letter Opposite party again send a notice Ext.A6 dated 25.2.10 but nothing was stated with respect to the earlier letters or anything about the RC and termination Hire purchase termination letter. Keeping of silence on the main issues in all the communications by the opposite party is a clear indication of unfair trade practice. Ext.A6 is send by Ext.A5 but nothing mentioned in Ext.A6 with respect to the contents of Ext.A5. Ex.A4 is send after the notice Ext.A2. But Ext.A4 did not contain anything about allegations and averments that had been raised in Ext A2. So that it is very clear the notice is send by the opposite party intended highly diplomatic so as to escape from the liability which is no doubt application of unfair trade practice.

In the light of the above discussion we are of opinion that the opposite party has committed the offence of unfair trade practice in repeating the legal notice. For the purpose of extracting excess amount and there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party for not returning the RC book and hire purchase termination letter. Hence we find opposite party is liable to return the RC book and hire purchase termination letter. Complainant is also entitled for `1000/- as compensation along with `1000/- as cost of this proceedings and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return the RC book and hire purchase termination letter and to pay a sum of `1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation together with `1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

               Sd/-                  Sd/-                              Sd/-

President              Member                Member

Appendix

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the receipt dt.11.8.06.

2.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A3.Postal AD

A4.Copy of the letter dt.11.6.09 sent by Adv.Paulochan Antony

A5.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to Paulochan Antony

A6. Copy of the letter dt.25.2.10 sent by Adv.Paulochan Antony

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for either side: Nil

/forwarded by order/

                                                Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur