State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Indusind Bank,Rep. By Manager, ... vs M/S. M.Swaroopa , W/O.Sri M.Praveen ... on 30 January, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.817/2010 against C.C.No.862/2008, District Forum-I,Hyderabad. Between M/s. IndusInd Bank, Rep. by its Manager, Vehicle Finance Division, 3rd Floor, Minerva House, 94, S.D.Road, Secunderabad-500 003. .Appellant/ Opp.party no.1 And 1.M/s. M.Swaroopa , W/o.Sri M.Praveen Kumar, Aged about 30 years, Occ;House Wife, R/o.H.No.5-1-64/7, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Respondent/ Complainant 2. M/s.Sahgal Warehousing Co., Sahgal Estates, B.No.204, Turband , Akbar Road, Secunderabad 500 009. Respondent/ Opp.party no.2 Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. V.Gowrisankar Rao Counsel for the respondents : Notice served QUORUM: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE (Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) **** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.862/2008 on the file of District Forum-1, Hyderabad, opposite party no.1 filed this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant availed the finance facility from the opposite parties for purchasing a TVS Scooty.
The opposite parties financed a sum of Rs.31,000/- and have imposed a sum of Rs.4,028/- towards finance charges, mentioning the agreement value at Rs.35,028/-. The opposite party collected the post dated cheques for the monthly instalments at Rs.2,919/- per month. Though the opp.parties have collected the amount towards the registration charges in the finance amount itself they have not arranged for the permanent registration. The vehicle was delivered on 12.7.2007 and though the complainant paid 8 instalments out of 12 instlaments the vehicle was not registered by the opp.parties. The complainant requested the opp.parties to get the permanent registration and receive the amount due. But the opposite parties deputed their representative by name Mr.Naveen for seizure of the vehicle who had seized the vehicle on 29.10.2008 forcibly without giving prior notice.
Thereafter the complainants husband approached the Bank and requested for receipt of over due amount and release of the vehicle. But the opposite parties did not respond for the said request and sold away the vehicle for the lesser amount to the parties known to them. At the time of seizing the vehicle the complainant had her valet in the dicky of the vehicle and states that there is a sum of Rs.1200/- in the said valet. Opposite parties high handedly seized the vehicle without prior notice and ultimately failed to return the vehicle by receiving the over due amount inspite of several requests and representations which not only amounts to deficiency in service but also amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint seeking direction to opposite party no.1 to return the TVS Scooty bike bearing registration No.AP28 TR 7361 from the premises of the opp.party no.2 forthwith to the complainant, to return a sum of Rs.1200/- kept in the valet which is in the dicky of the seized vehicle to the complainant immediately, to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony, to immediately register the vehicle permanently and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.
Opposite party no.1 filed counter stating that there is no duty cast upon them to get registration of the vehicle much less permanent registration of the vehicle in favor of the complainant with RTA and it is the duty of the complainant to get registration for the vehicle in her favour duly endorsing hypothecation of the vehicle in the name of this opp.party. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of instalments. The complainant issued 12 post dated cheques but all the cheques were dishonored. As on the date of the seizure of the vehicle 11 cheques were dishonoured. Later on the last cheque was also dishonoured. The complainant paid 8 instalments subsequent to the dishonour of the respective cheques, but irregular. On 22.7.2008 itself a notice was issued by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant to pay the amount due under the dishonoured cheque dt.21.6.2008 for Rs.2,219/- and the said notice returned unserved with postal endorsement not claimed. As such the opposite party no.1 filed C.C.No.744/2008 on the file of First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad and the same is still pending. Opp.party no.1 also issued one more notice to the complainant on 18.10.2008 demanding to pay overdue amount of Rs.8,833/- within seven days or to surrender the vehicle. As such it is false and incorrect to state that no notice was issued to the complainant before the seizure of the vehicle. A notice was also issued after seizing of the vehicle for settlement. The relationship between the complainant and opposite party no.1 is that of debtor and creditor and hence the complainant has to approach the Civil Court for breach of the terms of the loan agreement if any. Opp.party submits that as per the interim orders of the Honble Forum made in I.A.No.644/08 dt.30.10.2008 the vehicle was released to the complainant on 7.11.2008 by taking acknowledgement and they have withdrawn the deposited amount of Rs.8,757/- from the Forum and the complainant is still due to pay the last instalment amount of Rs.2,919/- in addition to 12 cheque bounce charges of Rs.3,360/- @ Rs.280/- per each cheque and additional finance charges for delayed payment of each instalment and he is also liable to pay godown charges. The opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Ex.A1 to A4 and B1 and B2 partly allowed directing the opp.party no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant and to pay costs of Rs.1000/- within 30 days. The complainant against opp.party no.2 is dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party no.1 preferred this appeal.
It is the appellant/opp.partys case that the complainant availed a vehicle loan at Rs.31000/- and she has to repay this Rs.31000 + finance charges of Rs.4028/- in 12 EMIs of Rs.2919/- each. All the cheques issued by her were dishonoured and only 8 instalments subsequent to the dishonour of respective cheques were paid by the complainant. Opposite party no.1 filed C.C.No.744/2008 u/s. 142 of N.I. Act which is still pending on the file of Addl. Chief MMC Court. It is also the case of the appellant that they issued Ex.B1 notice on 22.7.2008 and another notice on 8.10.08 demanding the complainant to pay the overdue amounts of Rs.8,833/- within 7 days or to surrender the vehicle. The complainant never paid any charges and the vehicle was seized and it is the appellants case that he sent a notice before seizure. But we observe from the record that this notice before sale has not been filed before the District Forum. Therefore an opportunity was not given to the complainant to pay his dues prior to seizure of the vehicle. It is also the appellants case that the complainant has to pay Rs.3,060/-towards cheque bouncing charges. But we observe from the record that the appellant did not file any copy of the agreement stipulating these charges and the appellant vide orders in I.A.No.644/2008 released the vehicle to the complainant on 7.11.2008 on the deposit of Rs.8,757/- by the complainant. We observe from Ex.A4 statement of account that cheque return charges of Rs.250/- had already been charged in each case and the complainant paid Rs.8,757/- in I.A.No.644/2008.
Therefore we are of the considered view that no further amounts are to be paid by the complainant and there is no detailed statement of account filed by appellant/opposite party to establish his case. Since there is contributory negligence on behalf of the complainant also we are of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Dist Forum is reduced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/- while confirming the rest of the order of the Dist Forum.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and order of the Dist Forum is modified reducing compensation from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/- while confirming the rest of the order of the Dist Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt.
30.1.2012