State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Indusind Bank Ltd., vs P.M. Meeran, S/O Maitheen on 28 March, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/10/485 (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/06/2009 in Case No. cc/07/127 of District Ernakulam) 1. S.PARTHEESH,EXECUTIVE LEGAL,INDUSIND BANK SHALOM TOWERS,BYPASS NORTH END,EDAPPALLY ERNAKULAM KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. P.M.MEERAN PONDANTHU HOUSE,PEZHKKAPILLY,MULAVUR VILLAGE ERNAKULAM KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 485/10
JUDGMENT DATED : 28.3.12
PRESENT:
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. M/s IndusInd Bank Ltd.,
Shalom Towers, Bypass North End,
Edapally, Edapally South Village,
Kochi - 24.
Rep. by its Authorized representative,
Shri. Partheesh.S, Executive (Legal)
2. The Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd.,
M.G. Road, Kochi, Ernakulam. : APPELLANTS
(By Advs. R.Suja & K. Rajesh)
Vs.
P.M. Meeran, S/o Maitheen,
Pondanathu House, Pezhakkapilly,
East Paipra Kara, Mulavoor Village,
Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam. : RESPONDENT
(By Adv. Sasthamangalam R. Jayakrishnan)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal preferred by the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No. 127/07 order dated: 20.6.09 (the complaint filed on 30.3.07).The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above case. This appeal prefers under the order of the Forum below that the Forum below directed the 1st opposite party shall jointly and severally pay Rs.63,731/-to the complainant for the excess payment he was collected illegally. The 2nd opposite party shall jointly and severally pay Rs.1,000/- by way of litigation cost to the complainant. The above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date fixed for compliance of this order till realization. The order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.
2. In short, the complainant has availed hire purchase loan from the opposite parties for his mini lorry bearing Registration No.Kl-17B-2131 after executing a hire purchase agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties. The complainant has agreed to repay the loan amount and future insurance charges in 36 instalments for which he has executed 36 cheque leaves in his bank account and also handed over the copy of the sale deed and tax receipt of his property, along with signed blank stamp paper worth Rs.50/- But the opposite parties failed to remit the insurance premium for the period 2005-06 and 2006-07. As mutually agreed by the parties, the complainant remitted the premium on 10.09.05 and 10.09.06 respectively. The opposite parties agreed to adjust the said premium amounts in 2006 July instalment. On believing the assurance of the opposite parties, he did not deposit the instalment amount in his bank account but the opposite parties send the cheque for collection which was dishonored. Though there was a balance in his account. They have not sent the subsequent cheques for collection. While the facts being so, on 17.12.06 in the night; the opposite parties illegally seized the vehicle. The following day, the complainant lodged Police complaint under the impression that the vehicle might have been stolen by somebody. On 18.12.2006 in the evening, the complainant has received a telegram sent by the opposite parties stating that they had seized the vehicle. Though the balance is outstanding against the complainant which was only Rs.84,310/-, the opposite parties illegally levied Rs.1,48,041/- including the following amounts from the complainant.
1. Over due Rs.45,000/-
2. Additional finance charge Rs. 8,731/-
3. Re-possession charge Rs.10,000/-
3. The opposite parties threatened the complainant with dire consequences and thereby the complainant was compelled to remit the exorbitant amount of Rs.1,48,041/- to release the vehicle. Subsequently on 15.01.07, the complainant issued a lawyer notice requesting the opposite parties to return the excess amount received from the complainant, also with the spare key and the related documents. But there was no reply from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant approaches this Forum for seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the excess amount of Rs.63,731/-with its interest and to return the spare key, the remaining cheque leaves, blank stamp paper, tax receipt, copy of sale deed along with total compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
4. The opposite party filed their written version and strongly contended that;
1. Though the loan has been disbursed to the complainant, they have not received copy of deed and signed blank stamp paper worth Rs.50/-.
2. The installment due on was defaulted on July 2006 and hence the vehicle was repossessed on 18.12.06.
3. The opposite parties collected the amount from the complainant in terms of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties.
4. The opposite parties are not in possession of any cheque of the complainant and spare key of the vehicle.
5. This Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since as per the agreement any dispute arising out the loan transaction is to be referred to the Arbitrator.
6. As per the terms of the agreement, the opposite parties are entitled to repossess the vehicle if there is default in payment. Moreover, at their discretion, the opposite parties can terminate the agreement.
7. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint with cost.
5. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the PW's 1 and 2 respectively and marked Exts. A1to A13 from their side and argument note was filed by the counsel for the complainant. There is no evidence adduced by the opposite parties.
6. The Forum below raised issued and answered each and every questions. The Forum below found that the opposite parties levied a total sum of Rs.1,48,041/- including over due charge of Rs.45,000/-, Additional finance charge of Rs.8,371/- repossession charge of Rs.10,000/- including balance amount of Rs. 84,310/- etc. The oral testimony of PWs'1 and 2 remain unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. In the above circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties have illegally levied the following amount from the complainant on 19.12.06. This amount comes Rs.63,731/-the illegal repossession of the vehicle by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service from their part. The complainant has suffered mental agony due to the act of the opposite parties. Considering the above circumstances, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
7. In the result, the Forum below passed the impugned order which challenged by the appellants by this appeal before this commission.
8. On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing; the counsel for the appellant and respondent are present and argued their own cases vehemently. The explanation submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the counsel entrusted by the appellant/opposite parties before the Forum below who committed some deficiency in service for this purpose. The counsel produced one document which is an evident of the concerned lawyer. He disposed that his clerk was committed some latches in conducting of the case and it was the reason to conduct the case in proper. The counsel for the appellant produced some documents before this commission directly. This is nothing but a photocopy of the printout taken by the opposite parties bank from the computer. But later the counsel produced one original documents of the same nature. The counsel for the appellant submitted that as per this statement of the account kept by the bank on 14.11.05. The complaint was defaulted the installment of Rs.12,156/-on 14.8.06 and 14.10.06 and 11.12.06 and 11.12.06 on very same amount of installments which defaulted by the complainant. On 5 installments there is a default from the part of the complainant. This amount comes Rs.60,780/- after deduction of over payment Rs.19,280/- it comes Rs.41,500/- it added with the interest. It comes Rs.44,152/-. This amount rounded and such a way this amount is due from the part of the complainant. This amount added with additional finance charges Rs.8,731/- and repossession charge Rs.10,000/- but instead of this amount the appellant/opposite parties given Ext.A3 notice for 84,310/-. In this way this fresh documents such as statements of accounts submitted at this admission stage which is not tally with the Ext. A3 documents issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. In other words, in the written version the opposite parties strongly contended that the complainant defaulted the installment of loan amount on July 06 and hence the vehicle was repossessed on 18.12.06. The two documents (Statements of account) produced before this commission is contradicting the version filed by the opposite parties before the Forum below. For filing this written version the appellant/opposite parties cannot be blamed their standing counsel who appeared before the Forum below. It written, read and signed by the officers of the bank. It is argued that, no fresh document is not admissible in the appellate tribunal at this stage. But there is no hard and rules to deny such documents to accept in the appellate stage before this commission. It is par from a civil court but for the interest of justice this documents can be considered at this stage also. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the figures of amounts on the basis of this documents is not at all tallying with the Ext. A3 documents and written statement of the opposite parties. In the written statement the counsel for the appellant stated that they repossessed the vehicle but the repossession is entirely different from forcibly taken from the legal custody of the complainant. Both are illegal acts as per the Eye of law. There is no necessary to repossess the vehicle. This vehicle hypothecated by the complainant to the opposite party bank. Hence they are the owner of the vehicle and they are having the RC book and the insurance certificate etc. The counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that this document cannot be accepted in this appeal stage. But he received a copy of this document and did not have the right to objection or to accept this document. He did not file any objection before this commission. He has no right to object it at this juncture. This commission considered this document in this stage but there is no scope for strengthen the case of the appellants by this documents. It is nothing but a vacuum.
9. Heard in detail and perused the entire documents the appellants/opposite parties issued Ext. A3 bill which contained repossession charge Rs.10,000/-. How the appellants/opposite parties are entitle to collect this amount from the complainant as per the law. No person have the right to collect the expenses for the illegal activities. The counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the Forum below found that the forcible taken of the vehicle is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and he prays for award in compensation under this head.
10. It is seeing that the Forum below found it in their order this is a finding of the Forum below (Page no.6 last Para) The Forum below found that considering the above circumstance, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant but in the result portion of the Forum below did not pass any order to pay the compensation. In this point, the respondent/complainant did not prefer any appeal. In other words, the counsel for the respondent/complainant have no right to raised such a contention either for the Forum below or before this commission in the prayer portion of the complaint. There is no prayer for the illegally taken of the vehicle and sought for any relief under this head. In the circumstance it is seeing that there is no scope for interfering in the order passed by the Forum below. The Forum below ordered to return the amount of Rs.63,731/- which collected by the opposite parties to the complainant and also ordered to pay Rs.1,000/- way of litigation cost of the complainant. There is no compensation or interest ordered by the Forum below. It is seeing that this order is legally sustainable. This order is uphold. This order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Da [ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA] PRESIDING MEMBER