M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 18.05.2016 passed in C.C.No.481/2015 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

THROUGH ITS MANAGER,

CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                   … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

MAHENDRA SINGH PARIHAR

S/O SHRI AJMER SINGH PARIHAR,

R/O VILLAGE-CHANDPURA,

POLICE STATION-BIJOLI,

DISTRICT-GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                          …. RESPONDENT.  

                     

BEFORE :

 

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

           

         

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 30.05.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This appeal by the opposite party/appellant is directed against the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.481/2015 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

-2-

2.                Facts of the case in brief as stated by the complainant are that, he had purchased Sonalika tractor for the purposes of agriculture after availing finance in the sum of Rs.3,08,931/- on 12.05.2014 from the opposite party-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’). The loan was to be repaid in 60 EMIs. Registration number of the said tractor is MP-07 AB-0229. It is submitted that till 31.05.2015 he had deposited Rs.83,100/- with the bank towards loan. It is alleged that on 16.08.2015 when he was going to deposit Rs.70,000/- towards loan repayment, the employees of the bank with the help of muscle power forcefully took possession of the tractor. The employees of the opposite party bank had also taken Rs.70,000/- from him of which no receipt was given. He made a complaint to the police in this regard. The complainant served legal notice on 25.08.2015 which was also not replied. The complainant is ready to pay the defaulted instalments even then the bank has not returned the tractor due to which he is unable to earn his livelihood. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the bank filed a complaint seeking direction to be given to the bank to return the tractor and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental and physical pain and Rs.8,000/- towards cost.

3.                The opposite party bank resisted the complaint stating that the complainant had obtained loan for Rs.3,81,132/- from the bank on 12.05.2014 which was to be repaid in 60 EMIs starting from 15.06.2014 till

-3-

05.12.2018. The loan account number was TFI2624052. As per loan agreement the complainant had undertaken to comply and abide the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant was defaulter in payment of due instalments to the bank and therefore on 01.08.2015 he was informed telephonically and in writing by the bank officials to deposit the overdue amount but he did not take any action, Thereafter the bank with the help of police took possession of the subject tractor on 17.08.2015 of which notice was given to the complainant. Reply to the letter dated 25.08.2015 of the complainant was answered on 11.09.2015. On 25.08.2015 post possession letter was issued to the complainant and he was asked to pay the remaining amount but when the complainant failed to deposit the same, the bank sold the tractor for recovery of the balanced financed amount.   The proceeding against the opposite party-bank is totally vexatious, oppressive, frivo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document