State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Sri Subinay Dey on 31 January, 2014
DRAFT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO.FA/103/2013 (Arising out of order dated 04/12/12 in Case No.CC/50/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas) DATE OF FILING:29/01/13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:31/01/14 APPELLANTS : 1) Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. 5/1, Raja Subodh Chandra Mallick Road Opposite Jadavpur Post Office P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032 2) Manager HDFC Bank, 1st Floor Gillender House 8, Netaji Subhas Road P.S. Hare Street Kolkata-700 001 RESPONDENT : Sri Subinay Dey S/o-Sujit Dey 2/1, Gouranga Mandir Road Kusum Kanan P.S. Jadavpur Kolkata-700 086 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Tarapada Gangopadhyay FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Prasanta Banerjee Ld. Advocate Ms. Sony Ojha FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. S.S. Chowdhury Ld. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in case no.CC 50 of 2010 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/- and directing the OPs to pay Rs.3,849/- to the Complainant and issue no due certificate in favour of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order.
The OPs were directed to return the post dated cheques to the Complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the harassment and mental agony of the Complainant and in default of the aforesaid amount the interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue thereon till realisation.
The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that he purchased a car by taking loan from the OPs. The EMI was fixed at Rs.6,972/- which was paid till 24/09/09.
The car was delivered in January, 2008.
Eight blank cheques were delivered to the OPs by the Complainant. On 24/10/09 the OP No.2 with the help of some anti-social elements forcibly repossessed the car by assaulting the Complainant. The OPs have no right to take possession of the car from the Complainant without taking recourse to due process of law. For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Learned District Forum held that the notice was duly served before repossession and sale of the vehicle. It is submitted that there was no finding by the Learned District Forum as to the alleged deficiency in service. It is contended that while awarding the compensation and costs the Learned District Forum did not discuss about the accounting so as to give direction regarding the payment of the sum of Rs.3,949/-.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Appellants forcibly repossessed the vehicle from the Complainant which was illegal. It is contended that EMI was duly paid by the Complainant. It is submitted that there was unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants. It is submitted that although the EMI was paid till 24/09/09 the vehicle was repossessed.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. It is the allegation of the Complainant that the OPs/Appellants forcibly repossessed the vehicle without taking recourse to due process of law.
But the Learned District Forum has observed that there was no document from the side of the Complainant that the vehicle was repossessed by applying force and engaging goondas rather the OP had filed the documents to show that the Complainant surrendered the vehicle voluntarily. It appears that by letter dated October 24, 2009 notice was given to the Complainant stating that in case of failure to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.3,18,512.30 the vehicle would be sold. It is also evident from the impugned judgment that the OPs served notice upon the Complainant on 02/12/08 and after repossession the Bank informed the Complainant about the auction sale demanding Rs.1,97,512.30 from the Complainant after adjustment of resale value. It is, therefore, clear that before repossession and also before sale of the vehicle notices were served upon the Complainant. Moreover, there is no material to show that the vehicle was forcibly repossessed. In the case of Dharampal Sharma Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. reported in I (2013) CPJ 203 the Hon'ble National Commission held that in case of default in payment of instalments as per loan-cum-hypothecation agreement the Petitioner waddled out of his commitments and did not pay the arrears of loan in time and the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal dismissing thereby the complaint was upheld. In the decision reported in 2013 (2) CCC 38 [Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd. Vs. Karnail Singh] it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in Para-10 as follows:
Keeping in view the above facts, we are of the view that the Appellant Company acted well within the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement and there is no evidence that they used musclemen or any other unwarranted coercive measure against the Respondent in violation of RBI guidelines and the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this respect. Admittedly, the Respondent had failed to pay most of the EMIs and, therefore, the vehicle was justifiably repossessed and sold after notifying the Respondent and in terms of the Agreement entered into between the two parties.
In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission and in absence of any evidence on record regarding alleged forcible repossession, we are of the considered view that the Complainant/Respondent was not entitled to get any relief. The Learned District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The petition of complaint is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
MEMBER(TG) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT