Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/118/2016

Jayaprakash Narayan S/o P.B.Puttachar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri.P.S.Sathyanaryanarao

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:09/12/2016

DISPOSED ON:10/08/2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 118/2016

 

DATED: 10^th AUGUST 2017

 

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

                   SRI. N. THIPPESWAMY               : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT/S	P. Jayaprakash Narayan, S/o P.B. Puttachar, Pawan Jewellery Works, Chikkapete, Chitradurga-577501.   (Rep by Sri. C.M. Veeranna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Court Complex Road, Chitradurga.   2. The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Head Office, Gandhi Nagar, Bellary-583103.   (Rep by Sri.L. Madhusudhana, 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.2,40,000/- 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 22.11.2014 the complainant has purchased Tempo Traveller bearing Reg. No.KA-16 C 1638 having its chassis No.MCIE 4CKA 8-F P-030859 and Engine No.B-63009063 by investing Rs.12,00,000/- and  borrowing hand loans from friends and relatives and loan 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.12,00,000/- 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, the OP No.1 has informed the complainant that, as per the directions of their Regional Office, complainants office has been auctioned for Rs.8,50,000/- and returned the balance amount of Rs.86,956/- to the complainant.  The OP No.1 has sold the vehicle for very meager amount, 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, now complainant is facing very hard days.  The cause action for the complaint arose on 07.10.2016 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 6 are denied as false.  It is true that, the complainant has purchased Tempo.  It is true that the complainant has availed Bank loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the OP No.1 on 22.11.2014 and agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 12.75% compounded monthly to the Bank.  The loan should have been repaid in equated 58 monthly installments of Rs.16,370/- together with interest commencing from 22.01.2015.    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.   The OP seized the vehicle in presence of the complainant and with his consent.  The said vehicle was hypothecated in the name of Bank and the same is noted in the RC Book.  After giving all opportunities to the complainant, the Bank authorities have seized the vehicle through seizure and taken 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.  Thereafter, the Bank authorities have conducted open bid, the same is published in the newspaper having largest circulation and conducted open bid in the presence of the bidder for Rs.8,50,000/-.  After closing of the loan amount of the complainant, there is a balance of Rs.86,956/-, the same has been paid to the complainant by a DD No.43745 dated 29.03.2016 and the same was withdrawn by the complainant.  The vehicle was auctioned for the amount more than the actual market value of the vehicle.  After the auction complainant attended RTO office, Chitradurga and gave his consent in writing to transfer the RC.  The seizer of the vehicle publication for auction and bidding of the vehicle made in the presence of complainant and the same is within the knowledge of the complainant.  There is no cause of action for filing of this complaint and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP as alleged by the complainant.   Hence, 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-5 were got marked.  On behalf of OPs, one Sri.M.L. Chandrashekar, Manager of OPs has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to B-11 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:- Negative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, on 22.11.2014 the complainant has purchased Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-16 C 1638 having its chassis No.MCIE 4CKA 8-F P-030859 and Engine No.B-63009063 by investing Rs.12,00,000/- and  borrowing hand loans from friends and relatives and loan from OP No.1.  It is argued by the advocate for complainant that, by hypothecating the vehicle by availed the loan from the OP No.1 and 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.  The complainant sought some time to clear the entire loan amount and 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. 

9.      It is argued by the advocate for OPs that, the complainant become defaulter in payment of regular installments and thereafter Bank has demanded so-many times to pay the loan installments but, complainant has not paid the loan installment.   Therefore, the OPs have seized the vehicle in presence of the complainant and with his consent.  After giving all opportunities to the complainant, the Bank authorities have seized the vehicle.  After that, OP No.1 has informed the complainant for sale of the vehicle, but complainant not turned up for payment of loan amount.  Thereafter, the Bank authorities have conducted open bid, the same is published in the newspaper having largest circulation and conducted open bid in presence of the bidder for    Rs.8,50,000/-.  After closing of the loan amount of the complainant, there is a balance of Rs.86,956/-, the same has been paid to the complainant by a DD No.43745 dated 29.03.2016 and the same was withdrawn by the complainant. 

10.    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-extract issued by the RTO, Chitradurga with respect to vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-16 C 1638 marked as Ex.A-1, which stands in the name of Ningesh T,  letter dated 29.03.2016, wherein the OPs stated that, the vehicle was auctioned for Rs.8,50,000/- and the loan amount of Rs.7,63,044/- has been deducted and the remaining amount of Rs.86,956/- has been sent to the complainant through DD No.43745, the same has been received by the complainant marked as Ex.A-2,  Office copy of the legal notice dated issued by the advocate for complainant to the OPs dated 07.10.2016 marked as Ex.A-3, office copy of the reply notice dated 07.11.2016 marked as Ex.A-4 and the postal receipt marked as Ex.A-5. 

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 letter dated 17.02.2016 written by the complainant to the RTO, Chitradurga marked as Ex.B-1, wherein it has been mentioned that, he gave consent to give FRC to the auction bidder, B-register extract issued by the RTO, Chitradurga, marked as Ex.B-2, which shows that, the vehicle stands in the name of complainant,  copy of the pro-note and hypothecation deed executed by the complainant to the OPs Bank for obtaining the loan for purchasing the vehicle marked as Ex.B-3 and 4, copy of the newspaper for selling of the seized vehicle in a public auction marked as Ex.B-5 and 6, letter dated 10.09.2015 written by the OPs to the complainant for seizing the vehicle marked as Ex.B-7, registered postal cover written by the OPs to the complainant marked as Ex.B-8, valuation report dated 19.11.2015 marked as Ex.B-9, valuation invoice and statement of account of the complainant marked as Ex.B-10 and 11.

  12.  The above said exhibits produced by the OP clearly shows that, the complainant has obtained a loan from the OPs and he failed to repay the loan installments to the OPs.  Therefore, the OPs have seized the vehicle and sold the same in a public auction after all the formalities and the adjusted the loan amount to the loan account of the complainant and the remaining amount to the complainant.  The complainant has received the remaining balance amount from the OPs and given consent to the RTO for change the FRC to the purchaser.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant himself received the balance amount from the OPs without any protest.  Hence, the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative.          

            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 dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 10/08/2017 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. M.L. Chandrashekar, Manager of OPs by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	B-extract issued by the RTO, Chitradurga with respect to vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-16 C 1638
02	Ex-A-2:-	Letter dated 29.03.2016
03	Ex-A-3:-	Office copy of the legal notice dated issued by the advocate for complainant to the OPs dated 07.10.2016
04	Ex-A-4:-	Office copy of the reply notice dated 07.11.2016
05	Ex.A-5:-	Postal receipt

 

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 17.02.2016 written by the complainant to the RTO, Chitradurga
02	Ex-B-2:-	B-register extract issued by the RTO, Chitradurga
03	Ex-B-3 & 4:-	Copy of the pro-note and hypothecation deed executed by the complainant to the OPs Bank for obtaining the loan for purchasing the vehicle
04	Ex.A-5 & 6:-	Copy of the newspaper for selling of the seized vehicle in a public auction
05	Ex.B-7:-	Letter dated 10.09.2015 written by the OPs to the complainant for seizing the vehicle
06	Ex.B-8:-	Registered postal cover written by the OPs to the complainant
07	Ex.B-9:-	Valuation report dated 19.11.2015
08	Ex.B-10 & 11:-	Valuation invoice and statement of account of the complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**