2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3261
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVINDER SINGH & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. – Respondent
NC/RP/464/2018
##PAGE1##
I. I
Date of pronouncement:
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 464 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 18'07.2017 in FA No.1176/2015 of the State Comryiission, Punjab)
UAvninder Singh,
S/O Avtar Singh Nagra,
R/o House No. 15, Village Mahi Rauli,
Ropar, Punjab.
(through Special Power of Attorney Holder Faqir Mohammad)
2. Faqir Mohammad,
S/o Sadiq Mohammad,
R/o Village Lasara,
Post office Jaijon Doaba, Tehsil Garshankar,
District Hoshiarpur,
Punjab. Petitioners
Versus
1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
4th Floor, Corporate Park, Gl Road,
Jalandhar
2 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,
SCO-153-154-155, Sector 9-C,
Chandigarh,
Through Bank Manager. ... Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING
MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
Appearance at the time of arguments:-
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjib Dutta, Advocate
RP No. 464/2018 Page 1 of 14
##PAGE2##For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate
Ms. Alana Mohammad, Advocate
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. Present Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner/
(Complainant in proceedings filed before the learned District Forum),
challenging Order dated 18.07.2017 passed learned. State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal No. 1176 of
2015, whereby the appeal was partially allowed. Consequently, Order
passed by the learned District Forum directing the opposite party to pay
Rs.3,53,776/- to the complainant/(petitioner) was set aside but
compensation of Rs.25,000/- with cost of Rs.3,000/- was enhanced to
Rs.60,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
2. The petitioner and respondent, are hereinafter referred to as
complainant and opposite party as appearing in the complaint filed
before the learned District Forum, for sake of convenience.
3. The facts fall within a narrow compass. In brief, complaint was
preferred by Faqir Mohammad/(complainant no.2) on the basis of
Special Power of Attorney executed by Avninder Singh (complainant no.
1) in respect of vehicle/truck bearing registration no.PB-23F-9907. The
RP No. 464/2018 Page 2 of 14
##PAGE3##said vehicle stood hypothecated with Kotak Mahindra Bank/opposite
party since loan of Rs.6,80,000/- was obtained by registered owner
Avninder Singh/complainant no.1, vide loan agreement dated
24.12.2012. The vehicle was further sold by Avninder
Singh/complainant no.1 to Faqir Mohammad/complainant No. 2 on
03.09.2013 and an affidavit of sale along-with receipt of consideration
amount was executed by Avninder Singh. However, the vehicle was not
got transferred in record of transport authority and registered in the
name of Faqir Mohammad/complainant no.2 due to hypothecation of the
vehicle. EMI towards repayment of loan taken from Kotak Mahindra
Bank were regularly paid by Faqir Mohammad till May, 2014. The
grievance of the complainants is that when the EMI installment for the
month of June, 2014 was approaching, officials of opposite party without
giving any prior notice regarding any default on the part of the
complainant, illegally seized the vehicle on 18.06.2014 at 7.30 a.m.
near Ahmadabad (Gujarat) through recovery agents. Despite contacting
the officials of opposite party, the balance due installment as on
20.06.2014 was not accepted.
4. It is further the case of complainant that opposite party/respondent
violating Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and without
RP No. 464/2018 Page 3 of 14
##PAGE4##giving any notice to the complainants arbitrarily appointed Shri
Harbhajan Dass, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Retired) as sole
Arbitrator and a claim petition for Rs.2,61,824/- was filed for recovery.
5. In the afore-said background, complainant preferred the complaint
before District Forum Jalandhar wherein vide Order dated 09.07.2014,
opposite party was restrained from selling the vehicle in question.
However, suppressing the fact regarding restraint Order dated
09.07.2014 passed by the learned District Forum, opposite party
obtained an Order form