State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank Limited (Rpag) Moga Branch ... vs George Masih Aged 46 Years Son Of John ... on 27 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 706 of 2007
Date of institution : 21.5.2007
Date of decision : 27.08.2012
ICICI Bank Limited (RPAG) Moga Branch through its
Branch Manager, Moga.
.....Appellant/ O.P. No.1.
Versus
1. George Masih aged 46 years son of John Masih resident
of Village Noorpur Sethan, Tehsil & Distt. Ferozepur
Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Zamindara Engineering & Autos (P) Ltd. Near Railway
Bridge, Ferozepur Cantt through its Manager.
.....Respondent/O.P. No. 2
First Appeal against the order dated
12.1.2007 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Sardar. Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Sardar. Jasbir Singh Gill, Advocate Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate For respondent No. 1 : None For respondent No. 2 : Ex-parte JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is O.Ps' appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and it was directed to hand over the vehicle to First Appeal No.706 of 2007 2 the complainant in perfect running condition within a period of 15 days from the date he paid the amount of all the due instalments. Initially the order was passed against O.P. No. 2 Zamindara Engineering & Autos (P) Ltd, but subsequently the complainant moved an application for correction of clerical mistake upon which in place of O.P. No. 2 it was to be read O.P. No. 1 vide order dated 31.1.2007.
2. The brief facts of the case are that George complainant had purchased the motor cycle from O.P. No. 2 for Rs. 43,500/- by taking a loan from the appellant. The complainant had paid Rs. 15,000/- as down payment from his pocked and the rest of the amount was paid by the appellant. He gave to the appellant 20 blank cheques duly signed by him and had been making the payment of instalments from time to time. However some financial problems arose due to which he could not make the payment of instalments for two months upon which the officials of the appellant forcibly took possession of the motor cycle from him. Thereafter the complainant offered to pay five instalments in lumpsum but the appellant did not return the motor cycle and ultimately it was sold by them for a sum of Rs. 18,750/-. The appellant issued a letter to the complainant still demanding Rs. 13185/- from him. Therefore complainant filed the complaint seeking First Appeal No.706 of 2007 3 possession of the motor cycle and to withdraw the letter dated 26.10.2006 demanding Rs. 13387/- and prayed for compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental tension, harassment and financial loss and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the appellant admitting that they advanced the loan to the complainant for purchase of motor cycle and he undertook to repay the same in instalments. It was admitted that he failed to pay the instalments regularly and they had taken the custody of the motor cycle. It was denied if they had sold the vehicle but they contended that the motor cycle was in their safe custody and by paying the regular instalments it could be returned to him. They denied if the complainant was entitled to any compensation for harassment and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. O.P. No. 2 admitted that the complainant had purchased from them a motor cycle by raising a loan from the appellant. They denied the other allegations mentioned in the complaint for want of knowledge.
5. Opportunities were given to the parties to produce evidence in support of their contentions.
6. Learned District forum after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, First Appeal No.706 of 2007 4 allowed the complaint in terms as referred to above. The O.Ps have challenged the same through this appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset contended that as per the complainant, the motor cycle has already been sold by them for Rs. 18750/- and therefore they are unable to deliver the possession of the same back to the complainant in compliance of the order passed against them. It was however admitted that for the purchase of this motor cycle a sum of Rs. 15000/- was contributed by the complainant as mentioned in Para No. 2 of the complaint and rest of the amount was a loan from the appellant towards the repayment of which the complainant had paid instalments. Learned counsel fairly conceded that they are ready to return the amount of Rs. 15000/- which alone was the amount spent by the complainant form his own pocket. His further contention is that the complainant himself admitted that he defaulted in making the payment of instalments, the appellant was therefore justified to take re-possession of the vehicle. According to him even the learned District Forum upheld this fact and there was no forcible possession proved by the complainant.
First Appeal No.706 of 2007 5
9. In their written reply, the appellant had denied if they have sold the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. It was due to this reason that the learned District Forum passed the order directing the O.Ps to deliver back the possession of the vehicle to the complainant on payment of the remaining instalments. The appellant has now come up with a different story that the vehicle has already been sold by them which means they had put up wrong facts before the learned District Forum in their written reply denying the said sale of motor cycle.
10. We are therefore of the opinion that it would not be advisable to insist upon delivery of the possession of the motor cycle to the complainant. One thing however is clear that the O.P. got from complainant the property worth Rs. 43500/- and had not paid back any amount to the complainant. However Rs. 15000/- is not the only amount contributed by the complainant but he had been paying instalments to the appellant also. The O.P/appellant should therefore refund to the complainant the entire amount which the complainant had to part with. We therefore of the opinion that the contention of the appellant should be accepted and impugned order should be modified. The appeal is accordingly accepted and the appellant is directed to First Appeal No.706 of 2007 6 make the payment of Rs. 15000/- to the complainant. The appellant would also refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 12,500/- received by them towards the instalments. The entire amount would be paid within 30 days alongwith interest @ 9% per annum since filing of the complaint i.e. 9.11.2006 till the amount is paid to the complainant. If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the appellant would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. the date of the filing of the complaint till the amount is paid.
Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER August 27, 2012. (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) Rupinder MEMBER First Appeal No.706 of 2007 7