National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kanwaljit Singh Walia vs Standard Chartered Bank on 21 March, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 4064 of 2007 (From the Order dated 5.09.2007 in Appeal No. 330/07 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh) Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Walia, S/o Shri Balbir Singh Walia, R/o H.No.1859/G, Housefed Complex, Phase -10, Mohali Petitioner VERSUS 1. Standard Chartered Bank, Collection Centre, SCO No. 58-60, Sector 8 C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 2. Standard Chartered Bank, Through its Regional Manager, 17, Parliament Street, Allahabad Bank Building, New Delhi. 3. M/s. Modern Automobiles Ltd. G.T. Road, Karnal, Haryana 4. New India Assurance Co. Through its Development Officer, Sh. Satinder Bansal, R/o 1063/6, Bazar Tanduran, Ambala City Respondents BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanjeev Sagan, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : N E M O to 4 PRONOUNCED ON: 21.03.2012 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT Aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 05.09.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint, the Complainant/Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.
FACTS:-
Briefly stated the facts as per averments made in the complaint are that the Petitioner approached M/s. Modern Automobiles Ltd, Respondent No.3 herein for purchasing a brand new Maruti Car in the month of September, 2000. Respondent No.3 quoted the price of the model MPFI as Rs.1,90,950/-. Petitioner informed the Respondent No.3 that he did not have the requisite amount to pay the full sale price of the car. Respondent No. 3 then told the Petitioner that it could arrange the loan if the Petitioner can pay the margin money and post-dated cheques for monthly installments. Believing the said allurement and inducement, Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5,058/- in cash to Respondent No.3 on 28.9.90 as margin money. Respondent No.3 obtained Petitioners signatures on many printed papers including blank promissory notes, loan agreement where the blank columns were not filled and also on blank stamp papers and many blank cheques. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 informed the Petitioner that it had arranged a car loan of Rs.1,90,950/- from Standard Chartered Bank, Respondent No.2 herein through their branch at Chandigarh, Respondent No.1 herein. Petitioner alleged that the terms and conditions of the loan agreement were not disclosed to him and he was not allowed to read the same. After completion of necessary documents and formalities, Respondent No.3 supplied a new brand car bearing chassis No.2306827 and engine No.3315609 to the Petitioner under hypothecation to the Standard Chartered Bank. Petitioner paid Rs.58,924/- till July, 2001. Due to financial constraints he could not pay the remaining installments. The said car was recovered by the Chandigarh Police from some accused involved in a theft case and the temporary number was written on the vehicle. Vehicle was got released by the Bank on supardari from the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Chandigarh in 2002 and instead of handing over the same back to the petitioner, the Bank sold the vehicle without his consent and knowledge. Petitioner received a notice from the Bank on 20.01.05 informing that the vehicle had been sold but still a sum of Rs.1,40,717/- was still outstanding against him. According to the Petitioner, the Bank (Respondent No.1 & 2) committed grave deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice by not handing back the car to him after getting it released on superdari from the court in spite of the fact that Respondent had received a sum of Rs.58,924/- from him out of the total amount of Rs.1,90,950/-. It was further alleged that the Respondent committed deficiency in service by selling the car to some other customer without his knowledge and consent and then demanding a sum of Rs.1,40,717/- from him. That the Bank in connivance with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Respondent No.4 herein had played fraud upon the petitioner by issuing the insurance policy for the period from 25.11.04 to 24.11.05 in the name of the Petitioner when the car was not in his possession. Complaint was filed seeking a direction to the Respondents to return the car without any delay and pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh or in the alternative to refund the sum of Rs.58,924/- deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondents.
Respondent Bank, on being served, filed its written statement. It was pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable as the same had arisen out of a finance agreement which was a contractual relationship governed by the terms and conditions of the contract. That there was no relationship of customer and service provider. That the Petitioner had himself approached the bank for availing finance facility and based on his representation and promises, the bank agreed to grant finance facility and the loan was advanced. The loan was advanced after execution of the documents by the Petitioner. As per clause 12 of the finance agreement in case of default in paying the installments, the Bank had the right to re-possess the vehicle and sell the same to recover the outstanding dues. That the agreement was executed by the Petitioner after reading the terms and conditions. That out of finance facility of Rs.1,90,950/- only Rs.58,924/- were paid. That the Petitioner had failed to pay the due installments despite repeated requests and reminders. He continued to be a defaulter as the cheques issued by him bounced on presentation to the Bank. That the order of release of the vehicle on superdari has become final as the Petitioner did not challenge the same any further. The factum of the sale of the car was denied. It was further pleaded that even otherwise sale of vehicle did not have a bearing on the facts of the present case as the complainant could not challenge the right of the bank to take possession of the vehicle. That there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
Respondent No. 3 in its reply submitted that the Petitioner had never mentioned about the theft of the car in his complaint or lodged any FIR. That the Petitioner had not stated whether he got the car registered with the registration authority or was still plying the same on temporary number which was valid for 30 days only from the date of sale. Complaint was liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. That the same was barred by limitation. It was denied that price of the car model MPFI AC was quoted as Rs.1,90,950/-. The actual price of the car in September, 2000 was Rs.1,97,535/- and the same was quoted to the Petitioner. The fact of giving any discount to the Petitioner was denied. It was denied that the signatures of the Petitioner were obtained on blank printed papers including bank promissory note, loan agreement etc. That the Petitioner had made arrangement for car finance at his own level as was clear from the delivery order dated 28.09.2000. That the car was delivered to the Petitioner on 28.09.2000 with hypothecation in favour of M/s. Standard Chartered Bank as per contents of the delivery report. That there was no deficiency in service on their parts and complaint was liable to be dismissed against them.
District Forum held that the Petitioner had concealed and suppressed the material particulars regarding the car in question. That the Petitioner in a veiled and sub-dued manner tried to plead that the original documents were recovered by Chandigarh Police from some accused who were involved in a theft case. Petitioned had failed to prove that the car was stolen. Even if it is assumed that the car had been stolen, the Petitioner had failed to supply the particulars regarding the occurrence of theft and FIR lodged by him. It was observed that the Petitioner himself did not file any application for taking the car on superdari from the court. District Forum was of the view that since the car was got released on superdari from Ilaqa Magistrate it was for the concerned court to intervene in the matter and take the action if the car had been sold illegally. It was held that the Petitioner was a defaulter as he had paid only Rs.58,924/- against the loan amount of Rs.1,90,950/. That the Bank can re-possess the vehicle as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. That there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Based on the above findings, District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, Petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order by observing as under:-
12. It is an admitted fat that the Complainant had purchased the car in question by taking loan from the OP Bank and had initially only paid a sum of Rs.5,058/- in cash as earnest money and the balance amount of Rs.1,90,950/- was taken on loan from the OP Bank, which was to be returned by way of 48 equal monthly installments of Rs.5,384/- each through post dated cheques.
It is also an admitted fact that the car having been bought on 19.9.2000, the complainant paid equal monthly installments only up to July, 2001 and thereby paid the OP Bank on an amount of Rs.58,924/- till then. It is the own admission of the Complainant that he did not pay any installment thereafter due to financial constraints. Subsequently, it is also stated by the Complainant that the car was stolen from Ambala when it was in the custody of a relation/friend of his and the same was recovered by the Chandigarh police. The car thereafter was given on superdari to the OP Bank by the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate to which the complainant raised no objection. The car was given on superdari in the year 2002 and there is nothing on record thereafter to indicate that the Complainant agitated in any manner for getting the car from the OP Bank or the Complainant paying any amount of EMIs to the OP Bank.
We find no force in the plea of the complainant that as per the law settled by the Honble National Commission in the case of Citicorp Maturiti Finance Ltd. (Supra) that the OP Bank had no legal authority to repossess the vehicle. We find that this authority of Honble National Commission is not applicable to the instant case as in this case, the OP Bank did not repossess the vehicle but was in fact hand over the vehicle on superdari by the Ilaqa Magistrate and hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP Bank in taking the vehicle in their charge from the court of Ilaqa Magistrate. Further it has not been contested by the Complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement that the OP Bank is authorized to sell the vehicle to recover the balance loan amount. If the OP Bank had sold the car, even though, it has not been so admitted by them in the written statement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank as the Complainant did not pay the Bank the balance loan amount and the Bank was legally entitled to recover the same by the sale of the vehicle. We are of the clear view that letter dated 13.12.03 written by the OP Bank to the Regional Transport Officer in no way conveys that it is a No Objection Certificate issued to the Complainant and it indicates that the loan amount has been paid.
Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
Admitted case between the parties is that that the Petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.1,90,950/- from the Bank. Petitioner paid the installments upto August, 2001 and in all he paid Rs.58,924/-. As per Petitioners own statement because of financial constraints he could not pay the installments after August, 2001. According to the Petitioner, the car was stolen from Ambala when it was in the custody of a relation/friend of his and same was recovered by the Chandigarh police. The car thereafter was given on superdari to the Respondent Bank by the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate to which the Petitioner did not raise any objection. In terms of clause 12 of the agreement in case of default in paying the installments, the Bank can re-possess the vehicle.
Admittedly, the Petitioner had defaulted in paying the installments. Respondents under circumstances were legally entitled to re-possess the vehicle. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondent has sold the vehicle. Even if it is presumed that the vehicle has been sold by the Bank, it is for the concerned Court to intervene in the matter and take the action if the car has been sold illegally. There is no deficiency on the part of either the Banks or the dealer who supplied the vehicle to the Petitioner. Neither taking over the vehicle on the superdari from the Ilaqa Magistrate nor the alleged subsequent sale of the car amounts to deficiency in service.
We concur with the view taken by the fora below that there is no evidence on record to show that the documents regarding the finance of the vehicle in question were got signed by the Respondents from the Petitioner fraudulently or by making any mis-representation or inducement.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
.. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Yd/