DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
U.T. CHANDIGARH
Complaint Case No.: 27 of 2008
Date of Inst: 09.01.2008
Date of Decision:22.12.2009
Parvinderjit Singh s/o Sh.Kartar Singh r/o House No.232, Sector 3, Village Desumajra, Tehsil Kharar, Backside Gurudwara Sahib, District Ropar.
—Complainant
V E R S U S
1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Regd. Office: “Landmark” Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 through its Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.151/152, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.
—Opposite Parties
QUORUM
SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT
SMT.URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER
SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER
PRESENT: Sh.Ankush Kalia, Adv. for complainant
Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs.
—
PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT
Sh.Parvinderjit Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :-
i) Pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs as compensation for deficiency in service.
ii) Pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental tension.
iii) Issue No due certificate without charging any more.
iv) Pay costs of litigation.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took a loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from OP-Bank for purchase of Indica DLS-E2 Car bearing registration No.HR-29-K-7654 on 31.08.2005. The said loan was to be paid in 47 monthly installments @ Rs.5275 each staring from 01.01.2005 and the last installment was to be paid on 01.08.2009. The complainant paid monthly installments regularly upto the month of March, 2007 and thereafter, he could not pay the remaining installments. According to the complainant, OP-Bank without following the procedure laid down in the Higher Purchase Act forcibly took possession of the vehicle in question with the help of 4-5 musclemen in his absence from his house. Thereafter, OP-Bank sold the vehicle for a sum of Rs.68000/- without informing him regarding the sale of the vehicle and even no copy of publication for sale allegedly made in any newspaper was sent to him. The complainant submitted that the above said action of OP-Bank amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
3. In the reply filed by OPs, the factum of availing the loan of Rs.1,80,000/- by the complainant for the purchase of the car in question has been admitted. It has further been admitted that the loan was to be paid in 47 monthly installments @ Rs.5275 each staring from 01.01.2005 and the last installment was to be paid on 01.08.2009. According to OPs, the complainant was a chronic defaulter as he failed to clear the outstanding dues of the bank despite issuance of specific notice to the effect that the Bank would exercise its right to put the vehicle to sale for recovery of its dues in case he failed to pay the same. It has further been pleaded by OPs that the vehicle was sold as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and that the vehicle was sold on 22.10.2007 in open auction to the highest bidder. All other averments of the complainant made in the complaint are controverted. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc.
5. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1.80 lakhs from the OPs for purchase of the car in question as per the terms of the loan agreement dated 31.08.2005. The above said loan amount was to be repaid by the complainant in 47 equally monthly installments of Rs.5275/- each starting from 01.01.2005. The case of the complainant is that he had been paying the installments regularly upto the month of March, 2007 whereas the case of OPs is that the loan amount was not being paid regularly on the due date and the complainant had defaulted in repayment of the loan. It is further the case of OPs that as the complainant failed to pay the installment regularly as per the terms of the loan agreement. So the loan was recalled vide notice dated 10.08.2007 and the complainant was required to pay the full outstanding amount of the loan i.e. Rs.1,67,042/-. Despite it, the complainant did not repay the loan amount. So the car was repossessed for recovery of the outstanding loan amount.
6. Relying upon the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, it was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for OPs that OP-Bank had right to take physical possession of the vehicle in case of non-payment of the loan amount and put the vehicle to sale for recovery of its dues. This argument of the learned counsel is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S.Vijayalaxmi, III(2007 CPJ-161(NC). The Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-
“23. From the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court as well as the High Court of Delhi, it is clear that even though the hire-purchase agreement may give right to take possession of the vehicle, money lenders/financial institution/banks have no power to take possession by use of force and have to follow the statutory remedy which may be available under the law”
24. May be that the procedure of law is slow, but that is no excuse for use of force for repossessing the vehicle. If the contention of the petitioner that it can take possession of the vehicle by means of force is accepted the rule of jungle would prevail and might would be right.
7. The above said view of the Hon’ble National Commission stands fortified by the ratio of case titled as Manager ICICI Bank Vs. Prakash Kaur and others, Manu/SC/0962/2007. So in view of the ratio of cases cited above, to our view, OP had no right to take away the car of the complainant for realization of the outstanding amount. Such an act of OP amounts to deficiency in service.
8. Admittedly, the car was purchased by the complainant on 31.08.2005 after raising a loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from OP-Bank. The said car was repossessed by the OPs on 13.06.2007 and was sold on 22.10.2007. Admittedly, no notice was given to the complainant regarding the sale of the car nor any opportunity was granted to him for purchasing the said car. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the car was sold for a price which could have been fetched in the market at the relevant time. Therefore, OPs are not entitled to recovery any amount from the complainant against the said loan.
9. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and for that deficiency in service the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. So the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. In addition to this, the complainant is also entitled to sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation expenses. OPs are also liable to issue no due certificate in respect of the vehicle in question without charging any amount from the complainant.
10. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant along with Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. OPs are also directed to issue no objection certificate in respect of the vehicle in question to the complainant without charging any amount.
11. This order be complied with by OPs within one months from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of compensation (i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-) from the date of order till its realization besides costs of litigation.
12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced
22.12.2009
Sd/-
(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)
PRESIDENT
cm
sd/-
(URVASHI AGNIHOTRI)
MEMBER.
Sd/-
(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)
MEMBER
Tags: ICICI Bank