State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank Ltd. vs Yogesh Kumar Poddar on 11 March, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.514/2009
Instituted on 01.10.09
ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch Manager,
Korba Branch, Transport Nagar,
Dist. KORBA (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Yogesh Kumar Poddar, S/o Shri Netram Poddar,
R/o Rani Road, Nr. Chitra Talkies, Korba,
Tah. & Dist. KORBA (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Hitendra Tiwari, for appellant.
Shri Ajay Rajwade, for respondent.
ORDER
Dated: 11/03/2011 PER: - HON'BLE SHRI V. K. PATIL, MEMBER This appeal is directed against order dated 17.08.2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (herein after called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.62/2006 whereby complaint of the complainant was allowed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case as per averments in the complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle Toyota Qwalis Regn.no.CG-12 D/0217 having been financed by OP. Complainant further averred that in course of time due to three accidents the vehicle had got severely damaged which was possessed by him on „supurdnama' for Rs.3 lacs as per order dated 11.05.2005 of // 2 // Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba with a direction that the vehicle would not be transferred in the name of other person and said fact was intimated to OP also. Complainant also averred that he had made repayment of loan installments regularly for some period but due to aforesaid accidents and also due to retention of the vehicle in police thana, he suffered extensive loss and the vehicle was got repaired after taking the same into possession on „supurdnama' and meanwhile he could not repay some installments, so OP repossessed the vehicle forcibly through Pratap Singh. After repossession of the vehicle complainant contacted OP with request to repay loan dues on part payment facility but he was told that any action what so ever would be taken by its Bilaspur branch office. He was also told that the matter had been taken up with its higher offices and on their approval only his request would be considered. Complainant averred that finding no response from OP, ultimately he deposited Rs.3,46,000/- by cheque no.5071161 on 21.08.2006 which was in excess Rs.1,67,455/- over the required loan dues. Complainant further averred that after deposit of aforesaid amount on contacting Bilaspur branch office he was asked to contact aforementioned Pratap Singh who directed him to contact Mr. Murli of Bilaspur branch and he told him to repurchase the vehicle. Complainant further averred that having been fed up with the aforesaid act of OP he contacted its call center but he was told that there was no intimation of aforesaid act and it was also told that // 3 // repossession or sale of vehicle is done under due intimation to its owner. The complainant averred that the questioned vehicle was not delivered to him rather there were efforts by OP to sell it fraudulently to another person. Complainant averred that the act of OP of not delivering the repossessed vehicle despite complete payment amounted to deficiency in service so he prayed before District Forum, seeking direction to OP to deliver him the questioned vehicle with compensation @ Rs.1,000/- per day from 18.06.2006 with interest and also compensation towards mental agony & cost of proceedings.
3. OP while resisting complaint in its reply averred that the complainant was financed loan of Rs.4,50,000/- on 06.12.2003 under hire purchase scheme to purchase a Toyota Qwalis vehicle for private use and the loan was repayable in 36 monthly installments @ Rs.14,319/- and due to default in repayment of loan installments the vehicle was repossessed. OP also averred that the complainant was utilizing the vehicle for commercial purpose in stead of private use. OP further averred that the complainant had been regular defaulter in payment of loan installments as is evident from the statement of bank accounts since his 23 cheques were dishonored and the loan dues were rising high. The complainant was given notice on 20.06.2006 to deposit loan dues Rs.2,53,000/- along with interest @ 24% within 7 days failing which the vehicle would be sold but he did not respond, so the // 4 // vehicle was ultimately sold. OP also averred that version of the complainant that he deposited Rs.3,46,000/- with it, was not correct since no document in support of his version had been produced. In fact said amount Rs.3,46,000/- was received by OP on sale of the vehicle and was deposited in the loan account of the complainant and he was intimated on 06.09.2006 to collect amount collected in excess over loan dues but he did not give heed to it and filed complaint.
4. Learned District Forum having perused the documents produced before it and heard arguments of parties, allowed the complaint as per impugned order.
5. We have perused the documents on record minutely and heard arguments of parties.
6. (i) We find that admittedly the questioned vehicle was purchased by the respondent / complainant after having been financed by the appellant bank and it was repossessed by it and subsequently sold.
(ii) The question to be decided is whether the appellant bank had committed deficiency in service by repossessing the questioned vehicle from the respondent/complainant and selling it?
(iii) It is commonly known that financed amount is to be repaid by a borrower in periodical installments and non payment of loan // 5 // installments amounts to default on the part of the borrower which entitles the financer to repossess the vehicle and have necessary recourse for recovery of outstanding loan dues.
(iv) As per sale invoice vide document s.no.44, the vehicle was sold to the respondent/complainant for Rs.6,96,030/- on 26.12.2003. As per loan account statement vide document s.no.31 the financed amount was Rs.4,50,000/- which was repayable in 36 EMIs @ Rs.28,472/- during period 07.01.2004 to 07.12.2006.
(v) We find that as per document s.no.18, report dated 30.08.2006 lodged with police, in its first Para, the respondent / complainant stated that he could not deposit some installments with bank so the vehicle was repossessed by the financer bank. In another letter dated 05.09.2006 and 06.09.2006 documents s.no.27 to 30, written by the respondent/complainant to the appellant financer bank, he again admitted that he could not deposit some installments and also referred about making part repayment of loan dues. As per statement of loan account, document s.no.31 to 37 we find that cheques of the respondent / complainant on various dates had bounced, so it is obvious that he defaulted in repayment of some installments. Aforesaid loan account statement being of very technical nature does not reveal clear picture as to how many loan installments went in default and what was the amount of outstanding loan dues? The // 6 // respondent / complainant did not file copies of receipts / payment details towards amount deposited by him with the bank particularly the receipt of lump sum amount Rs.3,46,000/- claimed to have been deposited by him vide cheque no.5071161 dated 21.08.2006. Prima facie when continuous defaults in payment of loan installments occurred the appellant bank had right to repossess the vehicle, so it repossessed the vehicle and then sold it also so as to recover entire loan dues.
(vi) Learned counsel for the appellant herein argued that the respondent / complainant had been continuous defaulter in repayment of loan installments and amount of Rs.3,46,000/-, claimed to have been deposited by him, in the loan account, was actually collected by it through sale of the repossessed vehicle and was deposited in the loan account of respondent / complainant which indicated unfair intention of the complainant. He drew our attention towards the documents on record and argued to the effect that why the respondent would deposit amount in excess over the amount of outstanding loan dues. On the other side learned counsel for the respondent / complainant argued that the questioned vehicle was repossessed by the appellant illegally despite collecting more amounts over total loan dues but no cogent material like copies of receipts in support of his argument were produced. Further there is also no evidence about the vehicle being repossessed forcibly by the appellant bank. After repossession of the vehicle on 18.06.2006 the // 7 // respondent/complainant had enough opportunity to ascertain, from the appellant bank, the total outstanding loan dues during happening of continuous defaults so as to clear it off, but he failed to do so, hence the vehicle was sold on 21.08.2006 for Rs.3,46,000/- vide document s.no.53 & 54 which is a pre sale notice dated 06.09.2006 sent by the appellant bank to the respondent/complainant. Said pre sale notice letter is supported with a copy of certificate of posting issued by post office vide document s.no.55. Since related loan finance agreement has not been produced on record so it is not evident as to what were the terms & conditions agreed between the parties and thus in the absence of such vital documents the dispute can not be adjudicated.
7. Under the foregoing discussion and facts of the case, we find that learned District Forum has arrived at an erroneous conclusion in its impugned order, so it is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
8. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of Learned District Forum is set aside. Complaint of the respondent / complainant is dismissed. Respondent / complainant shall be at liberty to seek any other remedy if available in respect of settlement of his loan account, if so advised. No order as to cost.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/03/2011 /03/2011