National Consumer Disputes Redressal
A. Ganesan vs Sundar, Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. & ... on 30 October, 2009
OP 10/1998 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1657 OF 2009 (Against the order dated 12.12.2008 in A.P. No. 684/2005 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai) A. Ganesan, S/o M. Ayyakkannu, 85B, S.S. Colony, 1st Street, and also 82, Kanagavel Colony West Street, Rajamil Road, Madurai-1. Vs. 1. Sundar, Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd., (Earlier known as Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.,), No. 16 & 17, North Veli Street, A.R. Plaza, Madurai. 2. The Managing Director, Indusind Bank Ltd., (Earlier known as Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.,), Having office at Sudharshan Buildings, 86, Chamiers Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. . Petitioner/Complainant Respondents/Appellants For the petitioner-complainant Mr. B. Vinodh Kanna, Adv. For the respondents/appellants Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Pronounced on : 30.10.209 ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Under challenge in this revision petition is order dated 12th of December, 2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (State Commission for short), vide which, order dated 26th of September, 2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai (District Forum for short) allowing the complaint of the petitioner, has been set aside resulting in the dismissal of the complaint.
The reversal order passed by the State Commission is being challenged by the petitioner-complainant before the District Forum in the following background:
The petitioner-complainant, who is a practicing advocate, raised a loan of Rs.33,000/- from the respondents-Bank.
The loan was to be repaid in 29 equated monthly installments of Rs.1544/- in accordance with the Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the parties. While the petitioner-complainant claimed that he had paid all the installments and was entitled to a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the respondents-opposite parties, they not only did not issue the same but to the contrary forcibly repossessed the motorcycle. On a legal notice being issued, the respondents-opposite parties raised a false claim of Rs.8354/- on the plea of cheque return charges and additional financial charges. It was in this backdrop that the petitioner-complainant approached the District Forum, who, on adjudication, allowed the complaint and directed the respondents-opposite parties to give NOC for cancellation of the Hire Purchase endorsement on the RC. It further directed the respondents-opposite parties not to collect any additional financial or other charges being claimed from the petitioner-complainant. It also ordered the payment of Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards the cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondents-opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission, who, as already stated above, did not find any merit in the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
It is now the turn of the petitioner-complainant to challenge the order of the State Commission and that is how he is before us in this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that the State Commission has erroneously held that the respondents-Bank, as per terms of the agreement, was legally entitled to take possession of the vehicle, on the face of the District Forum having held that the petitioner-complainant had repaid the full amount of loan. While contending that the District Forum had passed a just and proper order, it has been argued that the State Commission has erroneously set it aside, ignoring the fact that the respondents-opposite parties had not given detailed statement in respect of the so-called additional financial and other charges to the petitioner-complainant, prior to the seizure of the vehicle and it was submitted only before the District Forum. Thus, the respondents-opposite parties were legally not entitled to repossess the vehicle. Their action to repossess the vehicle, therefore, has been rightly held to be a forcible possession and the rulings on the subject as enunciated in the cases of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. versus S. Vijayalaxmi [III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC)] and ICICI Bank Ltd. versus Prakash Kaur and others [(2007) 2 SCC 711] were squarely applicable. The State Commission, therefore, ought to have followed these rulings. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, therefore, submits that the revision petition be allowed and the order passed by the District Forum be restored.
Learned counsel for the respondents-opposite parties on the other hand has justified the order passed by the State Commission, which, according to him, is a well-reasoned order and has been supported by decisions of this Commission in the cases of St. Marys Hire Purchase versus M.A. Jose [III (1995) CPJ 58 (NC)] and Sheela Kumari versus Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company and others [II (2007) CPJ 92 (NC)].
We have perused the available records of the case as also considered the arguments advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties. This is a case where the petitioner-complainant raised a loan from the respondents-opposite parties for purchasing of a motorcycle under a Hire Purchase Agreement. There is a reference to a Hirer as also a Co-Hirer. While the petitioner-complainant was to be the main hirer i.e. the purchaser of the vehicle, it was a co-hirer who issued the post-dated cheques towards the re-payment of the loan and as would appear from the records, as many as 21 cheques out of 29 were dishonoured. The fact that the complainant was not regular in repayment of the loan dues also stands established and it was in this background that the State Commission arrived at the conclusion that the installments were not paid in time, which was rightly construed as default. The District Forum without any reference to the details of payment made arrived at the erroneous finding that the entire amount had been paid on 7th of November, 2003. When the respondents-opposite parties had furnished the details with regard to the amount payable vide Exh. B-3, it should not have rejected the claim merely because the details were not available. The same could have been asked for from the respondents-opposite parties and ignoring the same outright has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
We are in agreement that the view taken by the State Commission, especially in the background of the conduct of the petitioner-complainant in which he has projected a co-hirer whose post-dated cheques he submitted and later advanced a plea that he has not issued any such cheque. On the point of forcible possession, there is no evidence, as the petitioner-complainant himself states that he was able to retrieve the vehicle on the same day.
It is not established that the person from whom he obtained the vehicle was an authorized person or representative of the respondents-Bank. Not much credence can be given to this allegation.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(B.N.P. SINGH) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh/