Jatinder Pal Singh VS Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. , Madhya Marg, Chandigarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008(1) CPR 255
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
K.C. Gupta, President; Major Gen.(Retd.) S.P. Kapoor and Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
Jatinder Pal Singh —Appellant
versus
Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and Anr. —Respondents
Appeal No. 642 of 2007
Decided on 28.12.2007

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1:Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2:Sh. Ramesh Bamal, Advocate

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)(o) —Deficiency in service—Banks—Complainant alleged OP No. 1 Bank having assured a loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000 paid him only Rs. 4,12,000—EMIs included interest for the full amount of Rs. 5,00,000—OP No. 2 illegally detained complainant’s car on the instructions of OP No. 1—Held, annexure R 1 and R 2, which are duly signed by complainant, clearly indicate that Bank only sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,12,000 to the complainant and interest being charged through 39EMIs pertained to this amount only—As regards OP No. 2, it is apparent from records that complainant still owes OP No. 2 an amount of Rs. 88,000 paid by it to OP No. 1 on behalf of complainant—However, OP No. 2 was deficient of retaining the vehicle of complainant—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14 to 20)
       Facts of the Case:
        Appellant complainant purchased a Fiat Petra Diesel Car from OP No. 2 on 7.4.2004 costing Rs. 6,26,000 and he paid the amount of Rs. 1,26,000 whereas amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was to be financed by OP No. 1.
        Accordingly complainant handed over 48 post-dated cheques of Rs. 12,650 in payment of EMIs. It is further alleged that when son of complainant went to premises of OP No. 2 on 22.9.2006 to get the second service car done, OP No. 2 refused to release the vehicle on instructions of OP No. 1. At that time, complainant came to know that OP No. 1 had sanctioned only a loan of Rs. 4,12,000 instead of Rs. 5,00,000 as promised and OP No. 2 had made payment of balance of Rs. 88,000 towards price of car without the consent of complainant. OP No. 2 had detained the car illegally to effect recovery of Rs. 88,000 paid to OP No. 1.
        Alleging these facts, complaint was filed in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, U.T. Chandigarh. The complaint was contested by OPs by filing written replies and producing evidence.
        The District Forum, after hearing the parties and perusal of records dismissed the complaint wife its order dated 14.8.2007.
        The said order is being challenged in this appeal.
       Findings of the Commission:
        Appellant complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to case put up by him in the complaint. It is clearly proved by his own admission that appellant has been defaulting in the payment of loan amount. However, OP No. 2 was deficient in detaining complainant’s car without due process of law so he will not be entitled to detention charges @ Rs. 200 per day as demanded by him.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

S.P. Kapoor, Member—This is an appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Form-I, U.T., Chandigarh(for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 14.8.2007 in complaint case No.855 of 2006, Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh v. ICICI Bank and another.

2. Briefly stated the averments made in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Fiat Petra Diesel Car from OP No.2 on 7.4.2004. The total value of the car was Rs.6,26,000 and he paid the amount of Rs.1,26,000 whereas the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000 was to be finance by OP No.1. Accordingly, the complainant handed over a post-dated cheque of Rs.5,00,000 as security amount. The amount of Rs.5,00,000 of loan was to be repaid by 48 EMIs of Rs.12,650. The complainant gave 48 post-dated cheques of the EMI amount out of which cheque for the month of May 2006 was in the name of Maya Finance towards one advance instalments and the balance 47 cheques were issued in favour of ICICI Bank who had financed the loan. It is averred that the complainant never defaulted in the payment but surprisingly when the son of the complainant went to the premises of OP No.2 on 22.9.2006 to get the second service of the car done, OP No.2 refused to release the vehicle as OP No.1 had instructed it to do so. At that time, the complainant came to know that OP No.1 had sanctioned a loan only of Rs.4,12,000 against the promised loan on Rs.5,00,000 and OP No.2 had made the payment of balance of Rs.88,000 towards the price of the car without the consent of the complainant. It has further been alleged by the complainant that the car is in the custody of the Complainant since July 2006 whereas the Complainant had paid EMIs till September 2006 but even then, the vehicle had been illegally detailed by the Ops. It is, therefore, alleged that the Ops have deprived the complainant of Rs.1,26,000 plus 5 EMIs of Rs.12,650.

The Complainant had served a legal notice upon the OPs dated 28.9.2006 but to no avail and hence, the complainant filed the complaint seeking directions to the OPs as follows:

(a) release the vehicle immediately to the complainant;

(b) sanctioned full loan amount of Rs.5,00,000 as assured;

(d) If the OP No.1 feels that the loan should be reduced then they should reduce the amount of EMIs proportionately so that the rate of interest being charged on Rs.5,00,000 for four years should be the same as on reduced amount of Rs.4,12,000;

(e) To pay a sum of Rs.90,000 towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as well as mental torture, harassment and legal costs.

3. OP No. 1 even though appeared through counsel but did not file any reply and evidence, hence vide order dated 21.5.2007, defence of OP No.1 was ordered to be struck of.

4. The case of OP No.2 is that it issued a’ receipt of Rs.88,000 in good faith against an unsigned cheque but the Complainant never came forward to make the payment or to sign the said cheque despite repeated requests. The complainant was requested to pay this amount of Rs.88,000 when he came to visit the workshop of OP No.2 but the complainant instead left the vehicle at the workshop of the answering OP with the promise that he will make the above payment within 2-3 days and then he will take away the vehicle in question. However, the instead of payment of the amount, he issued a legal notice, which was duly replied. OP No.2 has denied that it refused to release the vehicle. In fact, the case of OP No.2 is that the complainant has to pay it Rs.200 per day as garage charges for the period the vehicle has remained in the garage of this OP. It is further the case of OP No.2 that the complainant undertook to pay the amount of Rs.80,000 by 8.3.2007 failing which he had agreed that the Bank could sell the car to realize the amount payable to OP No.2. The Complainant had signed an undertaking to this effect voluntarily, which is Annexure OP-2/11 of the file.

5. The lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday