Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Gautam Chourdiya, President and
Pramod Kumar Varma, Member Present
In the Matter of: Branch Manager,
Indusind Bank Limited – Appellant
versus
Firoz Kumar Beck and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.143 of 2023
Decided on 28.5.2024
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Smt. Nupur Pal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Shri Sharad Karke, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Proceeded ex-parte
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41 – Services – Banking – vehicle Loan – Repossession and Sale of Vehicle – admittedly only 07 installments were paid by the respondent No. 1/complainant and thereafter as per his own averment in the compliant due to breakdown of the vehicle in question he failed to pay the instalments. The vehicle was repossessed on 05.01.2019 and sold on 12.03.2019 to some Chisti Baba as per the entry made in the account statement. In the record of the District Commission intimation dated 05.01.2019 given to the City Kotwali Thana, OP-2 Exhibit-3 and final notice dated 08.03.2019 OP-2 Exhibit-6 along with postal receipt have also been brought on record. These documents apparently show that before repossession of the vehicle intimation was given to the Police and before sale of the vehicle final notice was sent to the respondent No.1/complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that illegally and without completing formalities the vehicle in question was repossessed and sold. However, on the issue of deficiency in service the consumer complaint was maintainable but the respondent No.1/ complainant has failed to prove any case of deficiency in service. Learned District Commission has erred in holding the appellant deficient in service and in partly allowing the complaint – On facts, appeal allowed. [Paras 6 to 13].
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Gautam Chourdiya, President—This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) is directed against order dated 28.07.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambikapur (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in complaint case No.CC/2019/144 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 herein was partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 / appellant herein was directed to pay to the complainant / respondent No.1 the amount of wrongful loss suffered by him of Rs.6,40,850/- (Six Lacs Forty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint 24.12.2019 till the actual date of payment. The opposite party No.2/ appellant was also directed to issue NoC pertaining to the loan contract of vehicle of the complainant/ respondent No.1 and to reflect his CIBIL as debt free. Compensation for mental agony Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) were also directed to be paid. It was further directed that entire amount of award be deposited by the opposite party No.2/ appellant in the District Commission within 60 days to which the complainant/ respondent No.1 will be entitled to receive. If the opposite party No.2/ appellant fails to deposit the amount as above within 60 days, then interest @ 8% p.a. will be payable on the entire amount of award for the period beyond 60 days. Aggrieved the opposite party No.2 Financier has preferred this appeal.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent No.1 on 29.03.2018 purchased as Mahindra Cosmo bus bearing registration No.CG-15-AB-0799 from the opposite party No.1/ respondent No.2 for Rs.16,56,400/- under hire purchase agreement with the opposite party No.2/ appellant. Rs.3,50,000/- were deposited as down payment and loan of Rs.14,00,000/- was obtained from the opposite party No.2/ appellant which was to be repaid in equal monthly installments of Rs.41,550/-. As per story narrated by the complainant/ respondent No.1 three installments were paid in time on 05.05.2018, 05.06.2018 and 05.07.2018 respectively. The fourth and fifth installments were paid with overdue charges on 27.09.2018, sixth installment with overdue charges on 05.01.2019. Due to breakdown of the bus of the complainant/ respondent No.1 in the month of October he could not pay further installments of the loan. On 05.01.2019 without giving intimation to the complainant/ respondent No.1 the bus was seized by the opposite party No.2/ appellant due to non-payment of installments. Vide letter dated 12.02.2019 the complainant/ respondent No.1 was asked by the opposite party No.2/ appellant to deposit Rs.16,15,081/-, on which he went to deposit the entire amount of Rs.16,15,081/-, but they refused to accept the same. On 05.04.2019 the complainant / respondent No.1 again visited the opposite party No.2/ appellant with the entire amount for depositing the same, where he was informed that his bus had been sold in auction. Alleging the action of the opposite party No.2/ appellant as deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking direction for the opposite party No.2/ appellant to return his bus bearing registration No.CG-15-AB-0799, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of litigation.
3. The opposite party No.1 / respondent No.2 did not file written version, affidavit and documents before the District Commission and the matter was proceeded ex-parte against them vide order 12.06.2023.
4. The opposite party No.2/ appellant in its written version took preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the District Commission on the ground that in the loan agreement it was agreed by the parties that the courts at Mumbai alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any matter / dispute between the parties. In Serial No.2(B) of the agreement provision of arbitration was agreed by the parties, which was invoked by the oppos
