Date of filing            : 21-08-2008

                                                                                    Date of order   : 15-05-2009

 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.138/08

                        Dated this, the 15^th day of May  2009

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI                         : MEMBER

P.K.Thomas, S/o. Kurian,

Pulickal House, Kannivayal.Po,                                             } Complainant

Now R/at Chittarickal Po,

Chittarickal Village, Kasaragod.Dt.

1. The Banking Executive, Vehicle Finance Division,    } Opposite parties

     IndusInd Bank Limited, Sudarsan Building,

     92, Chamiers Road, Chennai.600018.

2. The Branch manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd,

     Vehicle Finance Division, 2^nd floor Madan’s

     Arcade, Hosdurg, Kanhangad.

                                                            O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            The case of the complainant in brief is that even after of closing the loan in time availed from opposite party they refused to return him 6 cheques and the original RC of his vehicle kept by opposite party.  As a result he suffered and alleging deficiency in service the  complaint is filed.

2.            According to opposite party a sum of Rs.1000/- is due from the complainant that is the collection charges paid by them to the bank due to the return of the cheques issued by the complainant towards the repayment of instalments.

3.         But the specific case of the complainant is that 21^st day of the month was the date fixed for remitting the monthly instlaments but he had directly paid the instalments sufficiently earlier, inspite of the earlier stipulation to remit the instalments in his bank account.

4.            According to opposite party eventhough the stipulated date for repayment  was 21^st of every month.  But as part of the arrangement the complainant was specifically directed to make the payment on or before 6^th of every month.  This contention is not acceptable as the payments of instalments were goes to show that the monthly due is fell due only on 21^st of every month.

5.         It is seen that none of the instalments were pending due to which the cheques were presented for collection.  As against the payment stipulated on 21-7-05 the payment is seen made of 11-7-05 as against the payment to be remitted on 21-7-06 the complainant has seen remitted the instalment on 11-7-06 itself and as against the remittance fixed on 21-11-06 the payment is seen made on 14-11-06 itself.  Hence it could not be held that those payments were made after the stipulated date and therefore the complainant is no way liable to remit Rs.1000/- as demanded by opposite party.

6.         The complainant filed affidavit and Exts A1 to A4 marked.  Opposite party has not filed any counter affidavit.  No documents were marked on the side of opposite party.  Both parties heard.

7.         From the appraisal of facts, and evidence brought before us it is very clear that the opposite party committed grave deficiency in service in not returning the original RC of his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/ E 6480 and the 6 cheques retained by them.  According to the complainant he could not sell his vehicle for want of original RC  to one Thomas with whom he had entered an agreement.

8.         We have come across a number of complaints  alleging deficiency in service on the ground that the financial institutions dealing with vehicle loans  are not returning the original documents like RC  and cheque leaves  collected by them at the time of execution of loan agreement even after repayment of entire loan amount with interest.  Such kind of services definitely cause mental agony and sufferings to the customers.  Hence this is a fit case to award punitive compensation to the complainant.  Punitive compensation is awarded to make a qualitative  change in the mindset of the employees of the opposite parties and thereby not to repeat this kind of deficient, anti-consumer attitude against other customers who happened to avail loan from opposite parties.

            Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are  is directed to return the original RC of the vehicle KL 14/E 6480 along with 6 cheques retained by them with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- by way of punitive compensation and a cost of Rs.3000/-.  Time for compliance is limited to one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1.10-05-05 Repayment chart cum letter.

A2. 06-06-07Copy of U.C.P. Letter.

A3. 16-06-07 copy of lawyer notice.

A4. Postal acknowledgement card.

PW1.P.K.Thomas

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/