West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/168/2015

Gopinath Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

                                                               DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

Kapot Kumar Chattapadhyay, Member

 

    

Complaint Case No.168/2015

                                                       

Gopinath Mishra….………Complainant

Versus

Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd, Ghatal ………Opposite Party.

 

 For the Complainant: Mr. Somasish  Panda, Advocate.

 For the O.P.              : Mr. Somnath Guin, Advocate.      

 

Decided on: -29/04/2016

                                

ORDER

   Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member- The case of the complainant in a nut shell is that the complainant purchased one private car bearing registration No.WB-34AC/0467 with financial assistance through purchase/loan agreement with Indusind Bank Ltd., the O.P., Tamluk branch vide WMG0037C dated 13/10/2012 through payment of 48 monthly installment covering period of 07/08/2016.

                   The complainant contended in his petition of complaint that the monthly installment was fixed of Rs.13,601/- which was commenced on 12/11/2012  against the total installment of Rs.6,82,457/-. Complainant has paid Rs.6,42,078/- on 7/10/2015. Complainant states in the petition of complaint that due to some financial crisis the complainant make less payment of Rs.40,379.62/-. The O.P.-Indusind Bank issued a demand notice without mentioning the date for the payment of remaining Rs.1,76,389.62/- within 19/10/2015 including outstanding amount of Rs.40,379/- i.e. in total amount of Rs.1,76,389.62 within 19/10/2015 failing which the O.P. shall repossess the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant.

Contd……………….P/2

 

( 2 )

After receiving aforesaid letter of the O.P.-Bank, the complainant went to the office of the O.P.-Bank  for repay the outstanding amount of Rs.40,379.62/-but the O.P. denied to accept the amount but to creat pressure to repay the whole future amount i.e. Rs.1,76,389.62/- along with outstanding amount. The O.P.-Bank threaten that if the complainant could not repay the amount the O.P. demanded the O.P. repossess the vehicle of the complainant.

The complainant contained that the contract between the complainant and the O.P.-Bank made on 13/10/2012 with a commitment that the complainant with repay the loan amount by 48 installments within 07/08/2016. The complainant states that before the completion of  loan agreement the O.P.-Bank illegally sent the demand notice for the amount of Rs.1,76,389.62/- instead of outstanding amount Rs.40,379.62/-. The complainant also contained one year was remained to pay the down amount and the O.P. has violated the terms and conditions of the said agreement and illegally repossess  the hypothecated vehicle by creating  unfair trade and business practice.

The complainant in his petition of complaint that he is a consumer of the O.P.-Bank  and the complainant got the loan for purchasing his private vehicle for his personal use and the O.P.  has no right to take the custody of the vehicle forcibly with out due process of law. The complainant states that the O.P.-Bank         is in a motion to disposes the said vehicle by sale in under price which is gross deficiency of service  and also unfair trade and practice under the provision of consumer protection Act. The complainant submits that he is agree to regularize his loan and ready to repay all outstanding as per schedule of the statement of account.

The complainant therefore prays before the forum with a direction to return the aforesaid vehicle  and also not to sale the vehicle without the permission of the Ld. Forum. The complainant also prays for the production of statement of account and also prays for compensation for mental pain and agony.

The O.P.-Bank contested the case by filing written objection. The O.P.-Bank in his written objection states in para-1 and 2 that the case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing this complaint.

                In para-4 of the written objection the O.P.-Bank admitted that the loan facility was given the complainant. The O.P.-Bank also submits that Ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case which has been written in para-5 of the written objection and prays before the Forum to dismiss the instant complainant with exemplary costs.

Contd……………….P/3

 

 

( 3 )

The O.P.-Bank each and every statement contention and allegation of the petition of complaint denied and O.P. further states that nothing content in the complaint should be denied to have been admitted.

The contents of para-4, 5 and 6 of the complaint in totally denied and disputed by the O.P.-Bank.

The O.P. submitted that after accepting the term and contentions the O.P. disbursed the said loan amount to the complainant O.P. also states that the complainant failed and neglected to make payment contractual dues as per terms an condition. So delay payment charges has been levied from time to time. It is also submitted by the O.P. that  most of the installments paid by the complainant were beyond the stipulated due date and as such as per the terms and condition agreed between the complainant and O.P.-Bank the complainant is liable to pay delay payment charges.

O.P. contained that the complainant received the notice of disposed the vehicle but the complainant    did not pay any heed to the notice and the O.P. annexed the copy marked as annexure-“G”.

The O.P. submitted that the complainant filed the above case by suppressing the material facts of the case and tried to avoid the liability and frustrate the litigation claim of the O.P.  The O.P. states that the complainant has not come before the Ld. Court with clean hands and he is not entitled to relief as prayed for. The O.P. also states that in the present case there has been no unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. and so Sec. 14of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 can be given for the deficiency in service provide to the complainant.

So the O.P. prays before the Forum to pass an order dismissing the complainant filed by the complainant petition with cost.

      Points for decision

1)Whether  the case is maintainable in its present form

2)Whether the O.P. is in deficiency in service for unfair trade and practice u/s 14 of the  C.P. Act  ?

3)Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs, as prayed for ?  

   

                     Decisions with reasons

                                  All the points are taken up for discussion. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the case is maintainable in its present form and within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

Contd……………….P/4

( 4 ) 

                                   It is agreed by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that the contract for hire purchase with the O.P. made on 13/10/2012 with a commitment that the complainant repaired the loan amount by 48 installment covering date on 07/08/2016. But the O.P. illegally sent the demand notice for the amount of Rs.1,76,389.62/- instead of outstanding amount of Rs.40,379.62/-. So near about one year is remaining for repay the loan amount.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the O.P. illegally demand Rs.1,76,389.62/- at a time within 19/10/2015. The O.P. violated the terms and condition of the said argument and illegally repossessed the hypothecated vehicle by creating unfair trade practice. It is submitted by the Advocate for the  complainant that due to some personal financial crisis the complainant make less payment of Rs.40,379/-. Being received the demand notice the O.P. denied to accept the outstanding amount of Rs.40,379.62/-. But the O.P.-Bank denied to accept the amount. They threatened the complainant to repose the aforesaid vehicle. The Ld. Lawyer states that as because the complainant could not collect the whole amount within their ultimate period, the O.P.-Bank repossessed the aforesaid vehicle beingNo.WB-34AC-0469 on 19/10/2015. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant  that the contract period of agreement the O.P.-Bank repossessed the said vehicle and the O.P. is in motion to dispose of the aforesaid vehicle by sale  in under price which is gross defective of service and also unfair trade and practice under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.

In the above facts and circumstances of this case and inview of the above discussions it is held that the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.P.-Bank.            

                     Hence, it is,

                               Ordered,

            that the complaint case no.168/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest O.P.-Bank is directed to return the vehicle and to submit the loan accounts to the complainant

O.P.-Bank also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- only to the complainant for deficiency of service and O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as for and mental pain and agony and litigation cost within a month of this date of order..

Let copies of the order be supplied free of cost.

                   Dictated & Corrected by me

                                Sd/-                                                                                 Sd/-

                            Member                                                                           Member                                                                                                                                                                                

                       District Forum                                                                             

                     Paschim Medinipur