Karnataka

Bidar

CC/74/2014

VIJINATH S/O MAHADEVAPPA CHICKBASE - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

P M DESHPANDE

20 Jun 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 74/2014

 

                                                                                                    Date of filing :30/08/2014

 

                                                                                               Date of disposal : 20/06/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-               (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A.,LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                   (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                          B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                                Member.

 

                                   

 

                                                                                                                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:             Vaijinath, S/o Mahadevappa Chickbase,

                                           Age: 45 years,  Occ: House hold,  

                                                R/o H.No. 17-4-122/1, Agri colony,

                                                Mailoor,Bidar.                                                                          

         

                                          (By Shri. Deshpande P.M. Advocate)

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-                The Chief Manager,

                                                State Bank of India,

                                            Udgir road, Opp. Old Service Stand,

                                            Bidar.

            

                                    

                                         (  By Shri. Vilas Rao M. More,Advocate )  

                                                                                                                                                       

                                               

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    This is a complaint filed by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.P. The sum total of his allegations are as follows:-

 

2.         The complainant is a native of Bidar and he is an employee.  The complainant for personal purpose had purchased a Maruti 800 Car in the year 2001 under HPA loan with the O.P.  The complainant has paid entire dues of the car loan and the O.P. has issued certificate dt.24/09/2010 against the last payment of Rs. 1,24,500/- and the car loan stands closed.    The complainant avers that, on 31/12/2013 he went for his work to the O.P. Bank wherein, the O.P. official called him and asked to pay the car loan dues.  The complainant has replied and contended that the loan is already closed on 24/09/2010 but the O.P. official had asked to show the documents and he had produced  the same to the bank.  Even then the O.P. was not satisfied and  is continuously demanding the complainant dues for  Rs.29,955/-.  The act of the O.P. is quite unfair, derelictory and negligence in maintaining their accounts, vouchers and record.  There is no fault in the part of the complainant.  The complainant has sincerely paid the entire amount on 24/09/2010, itself as well as Rs.3,000/- for pressure amount as asked by the O.P. on dt.06/10/2010 and the O.P. issued certificate in respect of closure of the loan obtained by the complainant dt.24/09/2010.   Despite of issuing certificate of closure of the loan by the O.P., the O.P. demanding Rs.29,955/-.   This act of the O.P. shows deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint before this Forum claiming the NOC by the O.P., terminating HPA loan title in R.C. book and all other clear title be entered in the documents, vouchers concerned to vehicle and  quashing the alleged dues of             Rs. 29,995/-which was demanded by the O.P. and compensation etc.  

 

3.               After receipt of  Court’s notice the O.P. has   appeared before this Forum and filed his written version therein stating that, the contentions taken by the complainant in  his complaint are absolutely false and therefore the same are denied by the O.P.  The contention taken by the complainant  specifically in para No.3 of the compliant is false and the is are denied by the O.P.  Though the complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 1,24,500/- on 24/09/2010, after his vehicle was seized by the Bank for non payment of loan by the complainant, the loan account was not closed on 24/09/2010 which is evident from the statement of account from 01/09/2007 to 15/09/2014, which is produced herewith.   It is also evident from the statement of account that, on the date of payment of Rs. 1,24,500/- he was further due to pay the interest @ Rs. 15.45% on the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,24,563.33 ps. from 01/11/2009 till the date of payment i.e. 24/09/2010.  The complainant was due pay a sum of Rs. 14,991/- towards interest from 01/10/2009 to 31/12/2010.  Therefore the loan account of complainant cannot be closed.  Further as on the date of filing the complaint i.e. as on 31/08/2014 the complainant was due to pay a sum of Rs. 31,134.33 ps., which the O.P. is legally entitled to recover the same from the complainant with further interest from 01/09/2014 till the recovery of entire amount.

 

4.                  The O.P. further avered that, the complainant has obtained three loans from the O.P. Bank i.e. Car loan, Housing loan and personal loan.  Unfortunately he has not repaid the said all three loan as per terms and conditions and all the three loans became bad loans and they have classified as N.P.A ( Non-performing Assets) accounts which compelled the O.P. Bank to take extreme steps for recovery of overdue amount against the complainant.   Accordingly the O.P. Bank has seized the car from the complainant.  Thereafter only the complainant has paid the loan amount and  the interest from 01/11/2009 is still due which the complainant has to pay.   Further the complainant has ot repaid the housing loan obtained by him which compelled the O.P. bank to take the lawful possession of house of complainant.  After taking the possession of the house of the complainant,  he has repaid the said housing loan from this it is evident that, the complainant is not having good intention to repay the loan as per the repayment condition, compelling bank to take extreme steps.  The complainant  with such malafide intention and to avoid to make the repayment of car loan the present false and frivolous complaint has been filed against the O.P.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

5.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponent?

 

2. What order ?

 

 

6.           Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

               1.  In the affirmative.

               2. As per the final order, for the following:

 

                                                                                 

:: REASONS ::

 

7. Point no.1:-   In the instant case, we express regret that, the O.P. Bnak has been mighty lacklustre to pursue the case on it’s merit, excepting putting up sporadic appearances at will.  The O.P. vociferously canvassing that, the loan account was not closed as would be evident from Ex.P.4, and challenging the signature of the bank official, we had called upon the Bank’s counsel to ensure appearance of the Bank Manager vide orders dt. 25/10/2016.  The counsel though assured never acted on  his promise.  Thereafter, on 20/02/2017, once again the counsel for the O.P. was directed to submit the roster of the O.P. bank as on 24/09/2010, along with authenticated signatures of all officers of the Bank, discharging their duties as on that day.  It was never acted upon by the O.P.  Further, the O.P. bank has never taken any step to establish the other averments of the versions i.e. availment of same of the loans and non repayment of the same.

 

8.              One more development, at the prayer of the complainant,  proprietor of the seizing agency by name chandrakanth’s presence was secured by Court notice, and in fact, he has affirmed to have seized the car at the behest of the bank.  He affirms to have received part payment of seizure charges, which corresponds to Ex.P.5 of the case.

 

9.             Now, the question which appears to be luminous and sonorous, as to how, the O.P. Bank certifying the closure of the car loan on 24/09/2010 vide Ex.P.4 produced in the case, can at all resort to seizure of the car, as is evident form Ex.P.5  We therefore, hold in no uncertain terms, the O.P. bank has adopted unfair/monopolistic trade practices as defined in section 2 (h) (i) of the M.R.T.P.C. Act 1969, thereby committing deficiency of service and answer this point accordingly.

 

10.  Point No.2:    Keeping our gaze on the findings stated above, we hold that, the complainant has been  heavily wronged by the unsavoury act of the O.P. Bank, and therefore we proceed to pass the following.

 

 

:: ORDER ::

 

 

The complaint is allowed in part.

 

1.  The O.P. bank is directed to cancel the hypothecation clause in the R.C. book of the captioned Maruthi 800 Car of the complainant (Regn.no. not specified)

 

 

2. The  extra demand of Rs. 29,995/- of the O.P. bank is quashed.

 

3. The O.P. bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensationfor the illegal seizure of the vehicle and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

4. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 20^th day of  June-2017 )

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                            

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Copy of demand letter of complainant, dt.31/05/2014.  
2. Ex.P.2- Copy of Account statement issued by the Bank.
3. Ex.P.3- Copy of Remittance receipt.
4. Ex.P.4- Copy of loan closure certificate dt.24/09/2010
5. Ex.P.5-  Copy of seizure certificate,dt.06/10/2010.

 

 

 Documents produced by the Opponent/s

 

1. Original arrangement letter.
2. Original loan cum hypothecation agreement.
3. Original circular of R.B.I.
4. Certified copy of accounts statement.

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.

 

           

mv.