State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sayed Iqbal Ahmed vs The State Bank Of India on 12 October, 2022
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATe cONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMIsSION : HYDERABAD.
cc.NO.136 OF2017
Between:
Sayed Iqbal Ahmed,
S/o. Late Sayed Lateef,
Age: 60 ycars, Occ: Retd. Service,
R/o. 8-2-686/C/E/5,
Burhan Manzil,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad - 500034. ..Complainant
And
The State Bank of India,
Formerly known as State Bank of Hyderabad,
RE. by its Chief Manager
P and SB Branch,
Road No.3, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad - 500034.
.Opposite Partigs
Counsel for the Complainant: Sri G.Rambabu
Counsel for the Opposite Party: Sri K.Narayana Rao
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V. SESHUBABU, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO ****** (Per Hon'ble HON'BLE SRI V.V. SESHUBABU, Member-Judicial) Order
01. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 sceking direction against the Opposite Party to pay compensation of rs.30,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.
02. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
averments of the complaint are that the complainant taken various loans like car loan, personal loan and education loan from Opposite Party on 10.05.2007 onwards,; That finally he was due Rs.8,236/- on the car loan;
That tor job purpose in the year 2010, the complainant left for abroad and he was informed by the neighbours of the house that his car was seized by some people and when the neighbours wanted to give a complaint, as per his instructions the police refused to receive the same for the reason that, the neighbours are no way concerned with the car, That on 01.09.2015 complainant received summons in O.S.No.2089/2014 from the court of ll Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and thercafter, he appeared before the court and surprised to note that his car was taken away by the Opposite Party and subscquently, the Opposite Party in chief affidavit stated that, the car was sold away and amount was adjusted; That the Opposite Party even admitted the same and requested the court for time, to furnish the details of the adjustment of amounts into the accounts of the complainant. However, changed the version with an afterthought and represented that, they have not seized the car. The Opposite Party filed a petition to amend the pleadings in O.S. No.2089/2014 which was allowed; That against the said orders the complainant herein filed CRP No.2282/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court, which allowed the revision;
That inspite of repeated requests and demands by the complainant, the Opposite Party failed to furnish the car; hence, the claim for Rs.15,00,000/- towards value of the car, Rs.10,00,000/- towards interest from the date of taking away the car till the date of complaint and Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony.
03. The brief averments of the written version of the Opposite Party is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or on law, That the various claims are not at all maintainable;
That no fraud was committed by the Opposite Party in the car loan transaction; that the car was not at all seized and sold by the Opposite Party; That the State Commission has no jurisdiction and there is no cause of action at all to file the complaint, which is barred by time. Whether these pleas requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
04. To prove the case the complainant filed the evidence affidavit as Pwl and got marked Exs.Al to A5. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sahu, Branch Manager, Banjarahills Branch of the Opposite Party filed evidence affidavit of Dw1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.
Both sides filed written arguments.
05. Now the points for determination are:
i. Whether the Opposite party had seized the car of the complainant, sold it in any auction and adjusted the sale proceeds into the loan accounts of the complainant? ii. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party ?
ii. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so, what amount?
06. Point No. I: Admittedly, Pw1 obtained a car loan. Ex.B4 is the judgment in O.s.2089/2014 dated 30.11.2017 by the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said suit was filed for recovery of car loan amount. The suit was decreed for Rs.44,953/- with interest @ 15% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree with future interest @ 6% A P.a., till the date of realization. With this the opposite party proved the existence of car loan taken by Pw1.
07. Ex.B2 is the evidence affidavit of Dw1 in O.S.No.2089/2014 ho is Pwl herein. He categorically stated in Ex.B2, that he was away from India during the days 03.12.2010 to 08.05.2014; as such not paid any amount towards his loans and on his return, he was informed by the opposite party authorities that his car was seized and amount realized from thereon, was adjusted towards his loans; That while he was in abroad informed by the neighbours that the opposite party bank people have stolen his new car.
08. It is important to note that, the written statement pleadings of Pw1 which is marked Ex.B1 is that, he left India about two years back and by that time cleared all the loans and also paid the amounts through transfer, thereby cleared the loans. The written statement pleading of Dwl are quite contrary to his averments made under the Ex.B2 evidence affidavit.
Ex.B3 is
the statement of account of the loan of Pw1
car from
10.05.2007 to 25.01.2014. It will not reflect the adjustment of alleged car loan with auction proceeds by the opposite party. In other words Ex.B3 is not supporting the version of Pw1 to the effect that, his car was auctioned and sold by opposite party authority, and realized amount was adjusted to his car loan account. If, really the amount was adjusted it reflect in the Ex.B3 at one point of time or the other. So we are of the view that the contention of Pwlis not true and correct.
09. It is important to note that, as per the complaint, he borrowed the car loan but not given any details of the car, including how much he borrowed etc. As per Ex.B3, for the car loan Pwl borrowed Rs.3,50,000/-only. Ex.A is the plaint copy in O.S.No.2089/2014. In Para No.2 of the plaint it is mentioned that Pw1 purchased New Maruthi Swift LXI Car. Para No.3 of Ex.Al goes to show that, as Pwl failed to clear the loan the bank sold away the vehicle and adjusted amount into the account Pwl. Taking advantage of this pleading admission Pwl started contending that his car was seized. Subsequently, the Opposite party filed an amendment petition in 1.A.No.06/2015 to withdraw the above admission which was allowed; Of course, the Hon'ble High Court not permitted to withdraw the admission by its order in CRP 2288/2016 which is marked Ex.A4.
10. Ex.A2 is the evidence affidavit of Bank official in o.s.No.2089/2014 and in that also the seizure of vehicle and adjustment of sale proceeds to the account of Pwl are mentioned. In the cross examination, the counsel for Pwl suggested to the witness that, Mahendra Xylo a new unregistered car was scized by bank. In the Ex.A4 also it came into light that, Mahindra Xylo Car of Pw1 was scized. It is important to note that when Pwl purchased now Swift Car by taking loan from opposite party how the bank can seize Mahindra Xylo vehicle of Pw1. For the reasons better known to Pw1, had not filed registration certificate of either the Swit car or Mahindra Xylo CAR. No document is filed in whose name at present i.e., by the date of filing the complaint, the Pwl not even car stands lor i.c., seized car. Surprisingly, When he mentioned the registration number of the scized car.
to believe that, purchased the Car in ycar 2007, it is too much when it was scized in the year 2010, the vehicle remains unregistered even alter three years. I, the car number is given, it is casy to verily who is the present owner of the car and how he got it. As already stated supra, just taking advantage of the pleading made in the plaint about the seizure and sale of the car of Pwl, he knitted the story of seizure of car, auction of the sale, realization of amount and adjustment of the released amount into his bank accounts. Pw1 not even filed the statement of account of his education loan, or personal loan, to establish that, the car loan proceeds were transferred. to those accounts by the opposite party. lt shows no document is forthcoming to establish that the bank authorities have adjusted alleged sale proceeds of the car of Pw1, to any of his bank accounts.
11. When Pw1 is not even specific about the model and make of the car, it is too much to believe that his car was seized and sold by opposite party authorities.
12. The committing thest of car of Pw1, by the Bank people is a cognizable offence. In such circumstances, police cannot refuse to receive a complaint, even when third party wanted to give a complaint. So, the contention of Pw1 that, policeto refused / receive the complaint from the neighbours, is also not true and correct. So, the point is answered against the complainant.
13. Point Nos.ll && IlI: When the vallue of the Swift Car in the ycar 2007 was be more than Rs.5.5 Lakhs Pw1 claimed the value of the car at Rs.15,00,000/- in the year 2017 in the complaint. Mahindra Xylo LXI Vehicle cost wil be around Rs.12,00,00o to Rs.15,00,000/- depending upon the lower and higher end Added to the same intcrest on the car was claimed at Rs. 10,00,000/- which is not at all supported by any documentary evidence and it appears it is an imaginary figure made with intention have wrongful gain. However, as there is a mistake on the part of the opposite party in making a pleading in the plaint about the seizure of the vehicle and adjustment of sale proceeds Opposite Party is also partly responsible for the initiation of litigation. So, we are not inclined to award cost to anybody. With these observations, both the points are answered against the complainant. As Points 1 to 3 are answered against the complainant, the complaint is liable for dismissal.
14. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.