IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present:Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT F.A. No.364 of 2024 (Against the Order, dated 11.03.2024, in EA No.33 of 2023 in CC No.25 of 2013, on the file of the DCDRC, Erode)

Orders, dt.: 06.02.2025 Canara Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Anthiyur Branch, 101, Bargur Road , Anthiyur, Erode District 638 501. … Appellant/Judgement Debtor/

Opposite Party.

vs.

P.G.Subramaniam, S/o.Gurusamy, Uppimaduvu Thottam, Pudmariammankoil, GS Colony Post, Anthiyur, Erode 638 501. ... Respondent/Decree Holder/

Complainant.

For Appellant : M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.

For Respondent : Mr. R. Ganesh This Appeal came up for final hearing on 23.01.2025 and, after hearing both sides and upon perusing the material records and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-:-

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. President .

–

The appellant herein/Canara Bank – Erode, have come up with this First Appeal, challenging the order, dated 11.03.2024, passed by the DCDRC – Erode, in E.A. No.33 of 2023 in C.C. No.25 of 2013, issuing bailable warrant against the Bank’s Official in the execution proceedings on the premise that the order passed in the main case/C.C. No.25 of 2013 by the DCDRF – Erode, directing the Bank to deliver the tractor-cum-trailer bearing Registration No.TN-36 H- 3873 to the respondent herein/complainant in the main case, has not been complied with, in its real letter and spirit.

2. At the first instance, it is but proper to narrate below the relevant facts and events, for better understanding of the case background and proper adjudication of the emerging issue.

The appellant herein is the Judgment Debtor (in short JD)/Opposite Party in the main C.C. while the respondent is the Decree Holder (in short DH)/complainant and the parties are referred to in the course of this order as JD/Bank and DH/complainant respectively.

The subject-matter involved in the present instance is a Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing Registration No.TN-36 H- 3873 that was purchased by the complainant, by subjecting the same to hypothecation with the Bank on 12.01.2005. According to the complainant himself, he was not prompt in payment of the loan dues which resulted in the Bank seizing the vehicle in January-2011. As such, during the year of seizure, the vehicle was almost 7 years old in age.

After seizure, the complainant did not immediately come up to redeem the vehicle by settling the dues but he kept quiet for some months and thereafter, he approached the Bank for closing the loan account on re-payment and, after doing so, he sought delivery of the vehicle, whereupon, the Bank sent him to their Agent in whose Yard at Salem, the vehicle was stationed for safe custody. Since the Agent demanded yard charges to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, after issuing a legal notice to the Bank, the complainant filed the main CC, seeking the District Forum to deliver custody of the vehicle in question in the presence of an engineer/commissioner to oversee its condition and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the delay in surrender of the vehicle and another similar sum for mental agony.

The Bank resisted the claim with their written version inter alia stating that, as they had no facility to keep the vehicle, it was entrusted to the 3rd party/Agent for safe custody and that, as per the usual practice, in such instances, the maintenance charges incurred for the vehicle seized upon the default of the borrower shall have to be borne only by the party concerned and hence, no question of service deficiency arose to find fault with the Bank and accordingly, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

While at the time of filing the complaint, three documents were filed by the complainant as Exs.A1 to A3 and no document came to be exhibited on the side of the Bank, it appears, during the course of trial proceedings, Ex.A4 – Communication was sent by the Bank to the complainant, stating thus:-

“As