Order No. 20 dt. 21/12/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one second hand truck being registration no.WB29/6835. The said vehicle was purchased from Kanshan Hait of village & P.O. Balidangri, Panskura, Purba Medinipur on payment of Rs.9,50,000/-. For the purpose of purchasing the said vehicle the complainant entered into an agreement with the o.p. who sanctioned the loan to the tune of Rs.7,18,000/- and it was decided that the EMI would be paid by the complainant @ Rs.26,700/-. Suddenly the vehicle met with an accident in the month of July,2012 for which the complainant could not earn anything from the said said vehicle and failed to pay the EMI in time to the o.p. from July,2012. The o.p. demanded the outstanding amount the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- to the o.p. on 05.12.2012. Subsequently on 13.12.2013 the o.p. took possession of the vehicle with the help of some musclemen to the o.p. the complainant thereafter made the o.p. and requested the o.p. to release the vehicle but o.p. did not pay any heed on the contrary demanded the loan amount of Rs.6,54,717/-. Subsequently without a notice to the complainant sold the vehicle to third party at a price of Rs.3,58,000/-. After the saleof the vehicle the o.p. informed the complainant on 25.03.2013 and further demanded Rs.2,986,717/-. Since theo.p. made unfair trade practice the complainant paid for return of the amount of Rs.9,50,000/- towards the price of the said vehicle and compensation of Rs.30,000/-and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The o.p. contested the case by filing w/v denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the o.p. is carrying on banking business the complainant entered into an agreement for which the o.p. released the fund in favour of the complainant for purchasing the vehicle. It was agreed upon by the parties that in case of the complainant failed to pay the amount the o.p. has every right to take possession of the vehicle and for realization of the amount invested the o.p. has every authority to sale the vehicle to a third party. Here in this case since the complainant failed to honour the agreement the o.p. took possession of the vehicle and sold to a third party since in spite of selling the said vehicle to a third party the amount collected from the said sale was much lesser than the amount remained due A notice was sent to the complainant asking for payment of the said amount. While the complainant found that he had no ground to refuse the claim amount of the o.p. on making some false allegations against the o.p. filed this case. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant obtained a loan from the o.p. for purchasing a vehicle;
- Whether the complainant paid the EMIs regularly;
- Whether the o.p. had any authority to sale the vehicle to a third party;
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.;
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a second hand vehicle and at the time of purchasing the vehicle the o.p. paid the loan amount. It was decided that the complainant would pay the easy monthly installments of Rs.26,700/-. Since the complainant failed to pay the EMI the o.p. to take the possession of the vehicle and sold the said vehicle to a third party. Even after realization of the amount after purchasing the vehicle the o.p. demanded further amount of Rs.2,96,717/-. Such demnand on the part of the o.p. was illegal for which the complainant filed this case alleging deficiency of service as well as compensation from the o.p.
The ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that as per the agreement dated 29.08.2011 executed by and between the complainant and the o.p. there was a specific provision that in case of default in making payment by the complainant to the Bank, o.p./ Bank has every authority to take possession of the vehicle. The Bank while found that the complainant was making default in payment of the outstanding dues several notices were issued to the complainant but in spite of receiving those letters the complainant did not keep any contact with the o.p. resulting in transferring the vehicle to a third party. Whenever the Bank found that the amount realized from the sale to a third party was not sufficient to the dues kept by the complainant the o.p. had to issue a letter to the complainant demanding the balance amount from the complainant. So far as the taking possession of the vehicle and transferring the same to a third party the said act was done by the o.p. as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the o.p.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case ld. lawyer for the o.p. as prayed for dismissal of the case.
Having regard to the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a vehicle which was paid by the Bank. Before advancing the loan amount to the complainant had entered into an agreement. From the materials on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant failed to honour the agreement and in the agreement itself it was mentioned that so long the loan amount would not be liquidated by the creditor i.e. complainant the o.p. has/had every right to take possession of the vehicle. Admittedly the complainant failed to pay the EMI and the bank took possession of the vehicle as the same was hypothecated to the bank. The o.p. after taking possession of the vehicle sent several letters but the complainant failed to reply those letters and also failed to contact the bank. The o.p.Bank ultimately while found that the complainant was not interested either to liquidate the loan amount or to get the release of the vehicle from the custody of the o.p., the o.p. found that in order to release the due amount sold the said vehicle to a third party. Since the amount realised from the said sale did not inconformity with the amount remained due from the complainant, the o.p.bank had no other alternative but to send a notice to the complainant for realize of the balance amount of Rs.2,76,717/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the op or there was any unfair trade practice adopted by the o.p. bank
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief from the o.p. Bank releasing in the dismissal of the case.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.309/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
