| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 26-12-2012. DATE OF S/R : 29-08-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27-11-2014. Sri Sanjay Ghosh, son of late Anath Bandhu Ghosh, resident of 51/1 D, Shew Chandra Street, Belur, P.S. Bally, P.O. Belur, District –Howrah, PIN – 711 202……….……………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT. Versus - 1. The Manager, Indusind Bank Limited, ( ground floor ), 8/1, Hardutrai Chamaria Road, P.O. & District – Howrah, PIN – 711 101. 2. The Manager Indusind Bank Limited, 41, Shakespare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017.…………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R Complainant, Sanjay Ghosh,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to hand over possession of the suit truck, to restrain themselves from alienating and/or transferring the suit truck to some third party and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation alongwith other relief or reliefs as theForum may deem fit and proper. Brief fact of the case is that complainant purchased one second hand truck being Reg. No. NL 01 K 4313, engine no. 91452060M62532981 & chasis no. 426031ASZ700439 by availing himself of a loan duly accorded by o.p. no. 1 to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- on 16-06-2012. The amount of loan was to be repaid in 36 equal installments at the rate of Rs. 29,550/- for which an agreement being no. WCC00824D dated 16-06-2012 was entered into by and between the parties. O.ps. assured that a true copy of the said agreement would be supplied later on but till date no such copy is received by the complainant. It is further admitted by the complainant that he could pay only the first installment amount ofRs. 29,550/- along with a further amount of Rs. 17,000/- to the o.ps. Due to his daughter’s and aged mother’s illness, he was compelled to keep away himself from his business through the said truck so he could not continue to make installment payment. Suddenly on 25-11-2012, o.ps. took away the truck in question. Immediately he rushed to o.p. no. 1 and requested for the return of the vehicle but o.p. no. 2 sent a demand notice dated 16-12-2012 vide Annexure P/29 asking for the total payment of Rs. 10,63,050.12 from the complainant within 10 days else they would sell out the truck. So, alleging deficiency in service against o.ps., complainant has filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief. It is further to be mentioned here that as complainant did not take any action towards the repayment of the due loan amount, o.ps. ultimately sold the vehicle in question at Rs. 5,00,000/- and adjusted against the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 8,47,274.12 as it stood just before the sale of the vehicle and informed the same to the complainant vide their lawyer’s letter dated 16-04-2014 wherefrom it also transpires that o.ps. are yet to receive Rs. 3,47,274.12 from the complainant. But just after taking away the vehicle by o.ps. after receiving the demand notice dated 16-12-2012, complainant filed this instant case on 26-12-2012 and prayed for an interim order for restraining o.ps. from selling out of the vehicle which was considered and passed in favour of the complainant on 26-12-2012 and it was duly communicated to o.ps. but o.ps. did not care for that order and sold out the vehicle. Notices were served. Theyappeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? Whether the complainant isentitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. It is the specific plea taken by o.ps. in their written version filed on 24/12/2013 that as complainant did not pay the E.M.I. of Rs. 29,550/- regularly with respect to the loan agreement dated 16/06/2012, o.ps. took away the vehicle on 23-11-2012. Due to default in payment, loan agreement got terminated. Even after that, complainant did not pay any installment except the first one along with Rs. 17,000/-. Accordingly, o.ps. also issued pre sale notice dated 16/12/2012 whereby complainant was asked to pay out the total outstanding amount of Rs. 10,63,050.12. But complainant still remained silent. So, o.ps. sold out the vehicle in question at Rs. 5,00,000/-. At the time of selling, the total outstanding due was Rs. 8,47,274.12 from the complainant which means complainant certainly paid some more installments as the total demand of o.ps. was Rs. 10,63050.12on 16/12/2012.Here we take a pause. It is to be kept in mind that an interim order was passed in favour of the complainant on 26/12/2012 and it was extended from time to time. How o.ps. dare to sell out the vehicle in question during the pendency of this instant case which was communicated to the complainant vide their lawyer’s letter dated 16-04-2014. Being a reputed organized company, how o.ps. could violate the order passed by this Forum? They simply showed no regard or respect for this adjudicating authority. Admittedly o.ps. allowed the complainant to repay the entire loan amount by 36 installments for a period starting from 16/06/2012 to 21/05/2015. There is also provision of charging penalty and interest on the overdue amount.Why o.ps. took this kind of daring steps of selling out the vehicle even without informing this Forum and in absence of the complainant. In this written version also, they have not mentioned on which date they sold out the vehicle. Complainant has mentioned that the truck was his only means of livelihood. By such arbitrary action on the part of o.ps., complainant has been thrown in a real miserable condition for which he is to suffer terrific financial crisis. O.ps. also mentioned some reported judgments in their favour. We have duly considered those judgments. But here in this case, o.ps. are really guilty of negligence. Accordingly, we hold o.ps. to be deficient in service. And this is our candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayer for compensation is required to be passed in favour of the complainant. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 178 of 2012 ( HDF 178 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps. That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed not no ask for any outstanding amount with respect to loan agreement No. WCC00824D from the complainant. That the complainant do get an award of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs from the o.ps. That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire decreetal amount of Rs. 55,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( Jhumki Saha ) Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah. | |
