DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 08/09/2020
CC/104/2020
Safar Ali,
S/o.Abdul Rahman,
Rahmaniya Manzil,
N.H.Road, Vanoor, Alathur
Palakkad – 678 541 - Complainant
(By Adv. Benny Job)
Vs
- The Manager,
Retail Asset Collection,
HDFC Bank, Thrissur
- Aneeshkumar
CEO, Mass Associates,
Suresh Nivas,
Kuttankulangara East Line,
Poonkunnam Thrissur – 2 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.K.A.Kailas)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complaint grievance pertains to non-return of documents submitted by him to opposite party bank while availing a vehicle loan. The complainant alleges that he had availed a vehicle loan from the opposite party. In view of certain financial stringency he could not repay the loan amounts and the EMI became irregular. The 2nd opposite party appeared and held out that if the complainant closed his loan accounts bearing nos.ML/1516, ML/1517, ML/1518 as one time settlement, the bank would return all the documents pertaining to the vehicle loan to the complainant along with NOC. Even after repayment all the amounts as directed by the 2nd O.P. no actions were taken by the opposite parties to return the documents of the complainant. This complaint is filed seeking return of all documents pertaining to the vehicle as well as issuance of NOC along with compensation and incidental reliefs.
- The opposite party entered appearance and filed version admitting the complaint pleadings. But they qualified the admissions by stating that they were exercising their right of Banker’s lien conferred under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. The complainant was also having a business loan with opposite party which had become irregular. In view of the irregularity in repayment of the aforesaid business loan, the opposite party bank did not handover NOC to the complainant. Such non delivery of NOC was based both on statutory rights and contractual rights wherein the bank reserved the rights to retain the papers with regard to the assets of the complainant. Retention of documents and non-issuance of NOC are valid and legal. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- On a perusal of the pleadings the following issues arise for consideration.
- Whether the bank was justified in exercising its rights under Section 171 of the Contract Act ?
- Whether there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
4. Reliefs, if any?
5. Evidence comprised of Exhibits A1 to A3 on the part of complainant. There was no objection to marking of the said documents. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. Both complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavits.
Issue No.1
6. Plea of the complainant that he had remitted the entire amounts due to him towards the vehicle loan is not supported by any documents whatsoever. But the opposite party has filed version admitting this allegation. Hence, case of the complainant that he had repaid the entire amounts due under the vehicle loan stands proved by the admission of the O.P.
7. Fact that the bank has a right to exercise lien is not in dispute. But whether such exercise is valid and legal in the facts and circumstances of this case is what is to be looked into. And the burden of proof rests with the opposite party bank to prove that invoking the right of lien was justified by adducing cogent evidence in support of their pleadings.
Version pleadings are to the effect that even though the vehicle loan stood closed, the business loan was irregular and dues were outstanding. It was because of the irregularities of repayment of this loan account that the opposite party exercised its statutory lien over the property of the complainant, ie. the car. Pleadings apart, no documentary or oral evidence was forth coming from the opposite party in support of their pleading. In the absence of cogent evidence the pleadings remain unproved.
8. Thus we are constrained to hold that the complainant has proved his case. The opposite parties have failed to prove their case in exercising Banker’s lien by adducing cogent evidence in support of their pleadings.
Issue No.2
9. Resultantly we hold that exercising of lien by the Bank over the complainant’s account is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Bank.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4
10. In view of the findings above, we hold as herein below:
1) Opposite party bank is directed to return all the documents of the complainant in their possession in relation to the vehicle loan.
2) Opposite party bank is directed to hand over NOC to the complainant.
3) Opposite party bank is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.
4) Opposite party bank is directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
5) No liability is imposed on 2nd opposite party.
6) The 1st opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to a solatium of Rs.250/- per month or part thereof from the date of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 13th day of January, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Receipt dated 29/2/2020
Ext.A2 – Printout of communication dated 28/2/20 regarding settlement offer of HDFC loan
Ext.A3 - Colour photocopy of identification card of O.P.2 bearing No.392190
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
