Order No. 18                 Date: 19.08.2021

Complainant being a consumer filed this complaint case for deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.

Facts of this case in short is that, in the year 2013 the Complainant was needed financial assistance to purchase a new vehicle.  For that purpose Complainant approached the O.P.s for providing bank loan for purchasing the new car.  Complainant approached Mr. Mahanti, Regional Bank Manager of Indusind Bank for purchasing the new car on loan.  That the then Bank Manager, Mr. Mahanti insisted the complainant to purchase a repossessed car on loan instead of purchasing new car on loan.

That Mr. Mahanti, the then Bank Manager insisted the Complainant that loan for repossess car is very simple and it would take short time and the rate of interest will be  less than purchase of a new car on loan. 

Convincing on the proposal of the then Bank Manager, Complainant accepted the proposal of down payment of ₹3,00,000/- for purchasing the repossess car.  Accordingly, bank accepted the amount by cash on 12.06.2013.  Complainant took possession of the repossess car from the parking zone at Panagar by making payment of ₹44,000/- as a parking charge of the said repossessed car.  The Bank Authority further assured the Complainant to change the ownership in the name of Complainant.

Accordingly, O.P. Bank granted car loan of ₹3,50,000/- plus interest ₹49,700/- plus 1^st year insurance charge of ₹27,364/- aggregating of ₹4,27,064/- with a assurance that ownership will be changed in favour of the Complainant  immediately.

According to the contract, Complainant made the following payments.

That the Complainant further stated that in spite of above payments Complainant made further payment of ₹5,55,273/- as per the table as mentioned.

That the Bank Authority entitled to recover the amount of 24 months E.M.I.s i.e. ₹4,27,064/- but bank realized ₹9,87,973/-.  Apart from that the then bank Manager, Mr. Mahanti illegally realized ₹3,00,000/- as down payment by cash and ₹44,000/- as parking charge, total aggregating of ₹13,31,973/-.

In spite of above excess payment, bank authority did not transfer the ownership of the repossess car, in spite of several requests and also fail to issue No Objection Certificate.

Hence, this complaint case,

O.P. contested this case by filing Written Version, wherein O.P. denied all the material allegations of the Complainant.

It is the case of the O.P.s that Complainant entering into the loan agreement dt. 18.07.2013 for a sum of ₹3,50,000/- with a view to purchase a 2^nd hand car and the said loan amount was repayable in 24 monthly installments of ₹3,50,000/- along with interest.  O.P. admits that they received the entire loan amount from the Complainant.  It is not the duty or the responsibility of the O.P.s to change the ownership of the repossess vehicle.  It is the further case of the O.P. that unless or until change the ownership in RC Book, O.P. would not give any No Objection Certificate to the Complainant. 

Hence, O.P. has no latches or responsibility to change the ownership of the vehicle.  Complainant has no cause of action to file this case and this case has been filed beyond the limitation period and this case is liable to be dismissed.

Points for decision

1. Whether this case in maintainable in its present form or not?
2. Whether complainant has any cause of action to file this case or not?
3. Whether complainant is entitled to get any relief / reliefs as prayed for or not?

Decision with reason

All these points taken together for sake of convenience and brevity.

I have carefully perused the complaint, Written Version and the Brief Notes of Argument (BNA) of Complainant and the O.P.s.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant approached the O.P. for purchasing the new vehicle, but O.P. No.-2 insisted the Complainant to purchase a repossess car and also assured that they would change the ownership of the repossessed car.  Accordingly, Complainant being the villager relay on the assurance and agree to purchase the repossess car on taking loan of  ₹3,50,000/-.  It appears from the record that O.P. received ₹13,31,973/- in different times, in different dates.  Moreover, in written objection O.P. admitted that the Complainant cleared the entire loan amount.  But O.P.s did not deny that they never received ₹13,31,973/- against the loan amount.  It is not clear before me why bank authority received ₹13,31,973/- against the loan amount. 

It appears that the total outstanding dues of bank was ₹4,27,064/- but bank realized in different way in different manner of ₹13,31,973/- i.e. bank received excess amount of ₹9,04,909/-.  In Written Version and as well as in Brief Notes of Argument (BNA) O.P. failed to give cogent documents for denying the claim of the Complainant.  On the other hand, Complainant gives the bank details which received from the system of the bank.

After received the entire outstanding dues O.P. (Bank Authority) is duty bound to issue N.O.C. Clearance / Certificate. 

Now another vital point, whether O.P. (Bank Authority) is responsible for changing the ownership of repossess vehicle?  A person invested huge money by taking loan without taking any ownership of the article, this type of conclusion, in my view, is difficult to believe.  Rather than it is believable that Bank Authority give the assurance that they will change the ownership of the repossess car.  Moreover, it will be clear in the terms and condition of the agreement or that whether such terms included in the loan agreement or not.  But unfortunately Bank Authority with held this agreement.  If Bank Authority submitted the loan agreement this point will be cleared.

It is not the case of O.P. / Bank that Complainant is guilty of defaulter of payment of loan according to the installment.  Rather Complainant made payment of excess amount of ₹9,04,909/-.

It is apparent from the record that Complainant on good faith as per direction of O.P. / Bank made payment of excess amount with a view to change the ownership of repossessed car.  Non-issuing of N.O.C. and not changing the ownership of car, O.P. / Bank is guilty of deficiency of service.

There is no explanation on the part of the O.P. that why O.P. / Bank received excess amount against the loan account.  The reason given for non-issuing the N.O.C. is baseless and not according to law.

It appears from the record that the alleged car is in custody of O.P. / Bank authority and Complainant took possession of the said car from the O.P. / Bank not from the previous owner i.e. Paruiddin Sardar.  It is not clear before me that why parking charge of ₹44,000/- was taken from Complainant.  In my view, Complainant in no way, liable to pay the aforesaid parking charge.

Hence, in my view, Civil Appeal No.-2067 of 2002, State Bank of India Vs B.S. Agricultural Industries (1), (SC), as referred by the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. / Bank is not applicable in this case.

In paragraph 2 of complaint, clearly stated that he wants to purchase the car for earning his livelihood only. 

Hence, the term “Commercial Purpose” will not applicable in this case.  Thus Complainant is within the purview of consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Hence, Civil Appeal No. 4193 of 1995, Laxmi Engineering & Workers Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute will not applicable in this case.

Hence, in my view, O.P. / Bank is illegally collected the parking charge from the Complainant.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. / Bank submits that Complainant has filed this case beyond the period of limitation.  In Para 13 of complaint, Complainant stated that he visited the office of Bank on 24.04.2019 for No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) and Change of ownership.  But O.P. / Bank authority has failed to issue N.O.C. and change of ownership.  Hence, in my view, cause of action arisen from 24^th April, 2019.  Hence, this case is not bar by limitation period.

Therefore, in my view, Complainant has sufficient cause of action to file this complaint case.

After receiving the loan amount Bank Authority failed to provide the service as claimed by the Complainant i.e. non-issuing of N.O.C. in favour of the Complainant.

Hence, in my view, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. (Bank Authority).

In the result Complainant will entitled to get relief as prayed for.

All the above mentioned point disposed of in favour of Complainant.

In the result, this complaint case succeeds.

Court Fee paid correct.

Hence,

                                 It is

                        O R D E R E D

that this complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.s. 

O.P.s are jointly or severally liable to pay the claim amount of ₹9,04,909/- (Rupees Nine lakh Four thousand  Nine hundred and Nine only) along with a interest @ 4% from the date of filing i.e. 26.08.2019 till the date of realization of the entire decreetal amount.   O.P.s are jointly or severally liable to pay compensation of ₹10,000/- for mental pain and agony and litigation cost of ₹5,000/-.  In default of payment of above mentioned amount by the O.P.s, liberty given to the complainant to file Execution Case for realization of the same.

Hence this complaint case is disposed of accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgement be handed over to all the parties at free of cost.