Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/120/2016

J.Ravikumar S/o P.Jayaprakash Narayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Pragathi Krishna gramena Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanaryanarao

11 May 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:09/12/2016

DISPOSED ON:30/06/2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 120/2016

 

DATED: 30^th JUNE 2017

 

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	J. Ravikumar, S/o Jayaprakash Narayan, Pavan Jewellery Works, Chikkapete, Chitradurga-577501.   (Rep by Sri. C.M. Veeeranna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Doddapete Branch, Chitradurga.   2. The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Head Office, Gandhi Nagar, Bellary-583103.   (Rep by Sri.A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate)

 

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP No.1 to repay the amount of the vehicle with accrued interest from the date of sale of vehicle, OP No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,80,000/- towards the loss in business along with interest @ 18%, direct both the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 22.10.2014 the complainant has purchased Scorpio LMV car of Mahindra and Mahindra bearing Reg. No.KA-16 N 0559 by investing Rs.6,00,000/- by borrowing hand loans from friends and relatives and obtained loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from OP No.1.  It is further submitted that, the complainant by hypothecating the vehicle has availed the loan from the OP No.1.  Accordingly, he has paid regular loan installments to the OP No.1.  But due to stoppage of business and some family inconvenience, the complainant became defaulter in making payment of regular installments.  Accordingly, complainant sought some time to clear the entire loan amount.  The OP No.1 provided time.  But, recently OP No.1 with the support of their followers and agents forcibly taken away the possession of the vehicle without drawing any mahazar and obtained signature from the complainant.  OP No.1 has not given any intimation or notice to the complainant.  Complainant has approached the OPs and sought for explanation.  At this juncture, OPs without furnishing the proper and accurate loan due amount refused to talk with the complainant and further the OPs orally demanded excessive loan accrued to be due from the complainant and in this behalf the complainant requested the OPs to give the proper loan statements of accounts but, the OPs have not given any proper details of the loan.  Very recently, complainant came to know that OPs without having any right title or interest whatsoever in the vehicle, sold the vehicle to others for a meager amount to fetch the loan accrued amount and OPs are well aware that the cost of the vehicle at present is worth more than Rs.14,00,000/- and OPs cannot sell the vehicle for a meager amount, the same is highly illegal.  It is very opt to mention here that, the recovery process should be effect in accordance with due process of law and not with use of force.  Till such time as the ownership is not transferred to purchaser/hirer normally continues to be the owner of the vehicle but, does not entitle him on strength of agreement to take back possession of vehicle by using force.  Such acts are violation of RBI guidelines.  For all these illegal acts, the OPs are liable to compensate the purchaser.  It is further submitted that, OPs are under the legal obligation to pay the sale price, they are declining to comply the lawful demands of the complainant, which act is a deficiency of service on their part.  The OPs are not supposed to neglect the claim and deny the lawful demands of the complainant, who is running the taxi for his livelihood.  OP No.2 has sold the vehicle behind the back of complainant for very meager amount without informing the complainant or to serve the notice which is not maintainable in law.  It is further submitted that, the OPs have denied the lawful claim of the complainant with a malafide intention to deprive him of his legitimate rights, the said act of the OPs amount to unfair trade business, custom, deficiency in service and willful negligence towards complainant who is the consumer.  Due to the illegal act of the OPs, complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony.  It is further submitted that, complainant is running the vehicle for taxi purpose and he and his family members are solely depending upon the income derived from this vehicle. From the act of OPs in seizing the vehicle and sold it to very meager amount, i.e., for Rs.9,20,000/-, now complainant is facing very hard days.  The OPs have not paid balance amount to the complainant.  For rest of the amount, they have shown towards recovery of principal and interest.  The cause action for the complaint arose on 13.10.2016 when the OP has received the notice and complied the same denying the allegations, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint with cost. 

3.      On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate and filed version.   It is submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The allegations made in para 2 to 5 are denied as false.  It is true that, the complainant has purchased Scorpio LMV car Mahindra and Mahindra bearing Reg. No.KA-16 N-0559.  It is true that the complainant has availed Bank loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the OP No.1 on 19.10.2014.  Complainant has admitted that he was running the vehicle as Taxi, as such the complainant was doing the business of travelling agency and the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes.  It is further submitted that, the complainant is running the vehicle for taxi purpose and he and his family members are solely depending upon the income derived from this vehicle is false.  The OPs are humbly submitted that, the complainant along with his brother Deepak were jointly availed the loan from the OP No.1 Bank for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and they deposited margin amount of Rs.3,72,341/-.  The total value of the vehicle is of Rs.11,72,341/-.  The OP No.1 Bank has issued DD in favour of the dealer on 20.10.2014 and they are agreeing to repay the said loan with interest at 10.50% + 2% penal interest monthly equated installments is of Rs.18,080/- repayable within 60 months.  The first installment was commenced from 20.11.2014.  The said vehicle was hypothecated in the name of Bank and the same is noted in the RC Book.  The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Chitradurga insured value of Rs.11,00,000/-.  The complainant become defaulter in payment of regular installment and thereafter Bank has demanded somany times to pay the loan installments but, complainant has not paid the loan installment amount.  It is further submitted that, the Bank has issued registered post notice to complainant and his brother Deepak.  The said notices are returned very purposefully and thereafter the complainant has not paid the installment loan amount.  After giving all opportunities to the complainant, the Bank authorities have seized the vehicle through seizure and take the custody.  After that, OP No.1 has informed the complainant for sale of the vehicle, but complainant not turned up for payment of loan amount and released the seized vehicle.  Finally got the valuation report of the seized vehicle from approved valuer from M.C. Himmath Kedar, Chitradurga on 19.11.2015.  As per his valuation report the seized vehicle value is of Rs.9,00,000/-.  Thereafter, the Bank authorities have conducted open bid, the same is published in the Kannada newspaper having largest circulation and conducted open bid in the presence of the bidder on 03.12.2015.  On that day Gurumurthy and others were participated in the said bid.  Finally bid of Rs.9,20,000/- offered by the K.G. Gurumurthy S/o Thippeswamy, JCR Extension, Chitradurga, he was the highest bidder of the vehicle.  After he remitted the bid amount to the Bank, thereafter the Bank authority has handed over the seized vehicle to Gurumurthy.  After closing of the loan amount of the complainant, there is a balance of Rs.1,84,574/- the said amount is kept SL at the Bank. The same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 30.01.2016 and complainant also visited the Bank.  The Bank Manager gave the information to the complainant.  But he knowing fully well, purposefully has issued notice to the OP and after that OP issued suitable reply to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, complainant and his brother Deepak. J are gold appraiser of OP No.1 Bank and also PKGB, Court Complex Branch and they have appraised the gold ornaments of the applicants.  Basing on the appraiser reports, the Bank has granted gold loan by pledging to different customers on different dates.  Subsequently, reappraisal of pledged gold ornaments was conducted as per procedure, it was found that, the pledged ornaments are spurious.  For this, Bank has lodged complaint against them before Town Police Station, Chitradurga and filed a charge sheet against the complainant and his brother and other loanees and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.               

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked.  On behalf of OPs, one Sri.B.S. Subramanya, Manager and PA Holder of OP No.1 has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to     B-12 documents have been got marked.  

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that:

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in non-return of the balance amount and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, on 22.10.2014 the complainant has purchased Scorpio LMV Car of Mahindra and Mahindra bearing Reg. No.KA-16 N 0559 by investing Rs.6,00,000/- by borrowing hand loans from friends and relatives and obtained loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from OP No.1 by hypothecating the said vehicle.  Accordingly, he has paid regular loan installments to the OP No.1.  But due to stoppage of business and some family inconvenience, the complainant became defaulter in making payment of regular installments.  Accordingly, complainant sought some time to clear the entire loan amount.  The OP No.1 provided time.  But, recently OP No.1 forcibly taken away the possession of the vehicle without drawing any mahazar and obtained signature from the complainant.  OP No.1 has not given any intimation or notice to the complainant.  Complainant has approached the OPs and sought for explanation.  At this juncture, OPs without furnishing the proper and accurate loan due amount refused to talk with the complainant and further the OPs orally demanded excessive loan accrued to be due from the complainant.  The complainant requested the OPs to give statements of accounts but, the OPs have not given any proper details of the loan.  The OPs have sold the seized vehicle for meager amount.  The ownership is not transferred to purchaser. Such acts are violation of RBI guidelines.  OPs are under the legal obligation to pay the sale price, they are declining to comply the lawful demands of the complainant, which act is a deficiency of service on their part.  It is further argued that, the OPs have denied the lawful claim of the complainant with a malafide intention to deprive him of his legitimate rights, the said act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade business, custom, deficiency in service and willful negligence towards complainant who is the consumer.  Complainant is running the vehicle for taxi purpose and he and his family members are solely depending upon the income derived from this vehicle. From the act of OPs in seizing the vehicle and sold it to very meager amount, i.e., for Rs.9,20,000/-. The OPs have not paid balance amount to the complainant. 

9.      In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like B-Register extract of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-16 N 0559 marked as Ex.A-1, Office copy of the legal notice dated 13.10.2016 issued by the complainant to the OPs and stated everything as stated in the complainant marked as Ex.A-2, reply notice dated 05.11.2016 issued by the advocate for complainant to the OPs denying the entire averments of the legal notice issued by the complainant marked as Ex.A-3 and Postal receipts marked as Ex.A-4.  The complainant has relied upon Ex.A-1 and 2, those documents clearly shows that, the complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-16 N 0559 and complainant has borrowed loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and paid installments to the OPs.  The complainant has explained the vehicle purchased by him for his livelihood and the entire family is depending on the earnings of the said family.  

10.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OPs that, the complainant has purchased Scorpio LMV car Mahindra and Mahindra bearing Reg. No.KA-16 N-0559 by availing Bank loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the OP No.1 on 19.10.2014.  Complainant has admitted that he was running the vehicle as a Taxi and doing the business of travelling agency and the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes.  The complainant along with his brother Deepak were jointly availed the loan from the OP No.1 Bank for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and they deposited margin amount of Rs.3,72,341/-.  The total value of the vehicle is of Rs.11,72,341/-.  The OP No.1 Bank has issued DD in favour of the dealer on 20.10.2014 and they are agreeing to repay the said loan with interest at 10.50% + 2% penal interest monthly equated installments is of Rs.18,080/- repayable within 60 months.  The first installment was commenced from 20.11.2014.  The said vehicle was hypothecated in the name of Bank and the same is noted in the RC Book.  The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Chitradurga insured value of Rs.11,00,000/-.  The complainant become defaulter in payment of regular installment and thereafter Bank has demanded so-many times to pay the loan installments but, complainant has not paid the loan installment amount.  It is further argued that, the Bank has issued registered post notice to complainant and his brother Deepak.  The said notices are returned very purposefully and thereafter the complainant has not paid the installment loan amount.  After giving all opportunities to the complainant, the Bank authorities have seized the vehicle through seizure and take the custody.  After that, OP No.1 has informed the complainant for sale of the vehicle, but complainant not turned up for payment of loan amount and released the seized vehicle.  Finally got the valuation report of the seized vehicle from approved valuer from M.C. Himmath Kedar, Chitradurga on 19.11.2015.  As per his valuation report the seized vehicle value is of Rs.9,00,000/-.  Thereafter, the Bank authorities have conducted open bid, the same is published in the Kannada newspaper having largest circulation and conducted open bid in the presence of the bidder on 03.12.2015.  On that day Gurumurthy and others were participated in the said bid.  Finally bid of Rs.9,20,000/- offered by the K.G. Gurumurthy S/o Thippeswamy, JCR Extension, Chitradurga was the highest bidder of the vehicle.  After he remitted the bid amount to the Bank, thereafter the Bank authority has handed over the seized vehicle to Gurumurthy.  After closing of the loan amount of the complainant, there is a balance of Rs.1,84,574/- the said amount is kept SL at the Bank. The same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 30.01.2016 and complainant also visited the Bank.  Complainant and his brother Deepak. J are gold appraiser of OP No.1 Bank and also PKGB, Court Complex Branch and they have appraised the gold ornaments of the applicants.  Basing on the appraiser’s reports, the Bank has granted gold loan.  Subsequently, reappraisal of pledged gold ornaments was conducted as per procedure, it was found that, the pledged ornaments are spurious.  For this, Bank has lodged complaint against them before Town Police Station, Chitradurga and filed a charge sheet against the complainant.

 11.   In support of their contention, the OPs have filed affidavit evidence of its Manager examined as DW-1 and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like sanction of vehicle loan to Sri. Ravikumar. J and Deepak. J on 11.10.2014 marked as Ex.B-1, undertaking letter dated 09.11.2015 executed by complainant and his son marked as Ex.B-2, returned postal cover with postal receipt  marked as Ex.B-3, letter written by the OP to the complainant for auction of the seized vehicle marked as Ex.B-4, wherein it has been intimated the about the auction of the said vehicle.   Returned postal cover with acknowledgement marked as Ex.B-5, Copy of the seizing letter issued to the complainant marked as Ex.B-6, Copy of the inventory marked as Ex.B-7, letter dated 30.01.2016 written by the OP to the complainant for closing of the loan account of the complainant marked as Ex.B-8, valuation report dated 19.11.2015 marked as Ex.  B-9, paper publication published in Kannada daily Vijayavani marked as Ex.B-10 for public auction of the seized vehicle, valuation invoice of the vehicle dated 03.12.2015 marked as Ex.B-11 and statement of account of the complainant’s loan account marked as Ex.B-12.

  The above said exhibits produced by the OP clearly shows that, the complainant and his son obtained a loan from the OP.  

12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant has produced Ex.  A-1 to A-4, those documents clearly made out that, the complainant has obtained from the OP for purchase of Mahindra vehicle.  Ex.B-1 to B-12 documents clearly made out that, the OP has sanctioned a loan to the complainant for purchase of the Mahindra vehicle and also due for non-payment of the installments and as per the documents, it clearly made out that, the complainant failed to repay the amount sanctioned by the OP.  As per the procedure, the OP has seized the vehicle and as per procedure the OP has sold the vehicle in public auction.  The main contention of the complainant is that, after adjusting the amount due by the complainant, the remaining amount not yet released to the complainant.  But, the OP has stated in its version, affidavit and written arguments, the complainant and his son are the appraiser of the gold loan sanctioned by the OP.  But, they have cheated the OP for appraising of the gold and further stated that, the Criminal Case is pending before the competent Court and further the OP prays not to issue any direction to disburse the balance amount to the complainant until disposal of the Criminal case.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is at liberty to draw the balance amount from the OP after disposal of criminal case pending before the competent Court and further OPs are to be ordered to keep the balance amount by depositing the same in the name of the complainant until disposal of the criminal case.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,84,574/- in your Bank in the name of the complainant till the disposal of the criminal case pending before the concerned Court.  After disposal of the criminal case, you are hereby directed to release the FD amount to the complainant.  If fails to release the said FD amount, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint before this Forum with the same cause of action.  No costs.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 30/06/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri.B.S. Subramanya, Manager and PA Holder of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	B-Register extract of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-16 N 0559
02	Ex-A-2:-	Office copy of the legal notice dated 13.10.2016 issued by the complainant
03	Ex-A-3:-	Reply notice dated 05.11.2016 issued by the advocate for complainant
04	Ex-A-4:-	Postal receipts

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Sanction of vehicle loan to Sri. Ravikumar. J and Deepak. J on 11.10.2014
02	Ex-B-2:-	Undertaking letter dated 09.11.2015 executed by complainant and his son
03	Ex-B-3:-	Returned postal cover with postal receipt
04	Ex.A-4:-	Letter written by the OP to the complainant for auction of the seized vehicle
05	Ex.B-5:-	Returned postal cover with acknowledgement
06	Ex.B-6:-	Copy of the seizing letter issued to the complainant
07	Ex.B-7:-	Copy of the inventory
08	Ex.B-8:-	Letter dated 30.01.2016 written by the OP to the complainant for closing of the loan account
09	Ex.B-9:-	Valuation report dated 19.11.2015
10	Ex.B-10:-	Paper publication published in Kannada daily Vijayavani
11	Ex.B-11:-	Valuation invoice of the vehicle dated 03.12.2015
12	Ex.B-12:-	Statement of account of the complainant’s loan account

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**