STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 12.04.2017 Date of Final Hearing : 12.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2026 SC/5/A/52/2017 IndusInd Bank Ltd.

Registered Office at New No. 34, Old Nos. 115 & 116 G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600017 Through its Attorney Sh. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary S/o Late Sh. K.P. Chaudhary Address: IndusInd Bank Ltd. Sandhu Centre, Transport Nagar Dehradun, Uttarakhand (Legal Executive)

(Through: Sh. Vikrant Gambhir, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava S/o Sh. Madan Lal Address: C/o Sh. A.S. Bisht, Makedi, Dharanaula, Almora (Through: None)

…..Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Almora (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 81 of 2016 styled as Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Shrivastava vs. Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd., wherein and whereby the opposite party Bank was directed to return the vehicle without any delay to the complainant on deposition of entire amount due within a period of 15 days. The Bank was not entitled for any parking charges. The Bank was also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- as mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses) to the complainant within fifteen days from the date of judgment.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant purchased a Maruti Alto car bearing registration No. UK01-A-7832 on dated 28.02.2014 after taking advance of Rs. 3,29,160/- from the opposite party Bank. The advance was to be returned in 46 installments of Rs. 7,156/- each. The complainant has deposited all the installments upto July, 2016. But for some reasons he could not deposit the installment for the month of August, 2016. But the opposite party Bank without any notice or information to the complainant, seized the aforesaid vehicle and took the possession on dated 27.08.2016. The said car is still lying in the custody of the opposite party Bank and it has done the same illegally without notice and on default of payment of one installment only. The car was taken out rightly in coercive manner without applying the procedure of law. Hence, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, as the bank has failed to comply with the provisions of law and in arbitrary manner has taken away the possession of the car. On the basis of above averments, the complainant has filed a complaint case before the District Forum.

3. The opposite party has opposed the complaint by filing its written statement denied all the allegations made in the complaint and stated that the same are false and concocted. It is further submitted that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint, as the arbitration clause in the loan agreement between the parties. It is also pleaded that the loan account of the complainant became irregular on account of installment and other contractual charges. It was further pleaded that the notice has been issued to the complainant to regularize the loan account. As per Clause 23 of Loan Agreement between the parties there is an arbitration clause to redress the grievance of the parties, if arises during subsistence of loan agreement. Hence, the jurisdiction of District Forum is barred. It is also stated that the Bank has not forcibly taken the aforesaid car rather the co-borrower / guarantor has handed over the said car to the answering opposite party. On this ground, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, hence liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2017 wherein an