KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.175/2013

JUDGMENT DATED :30.12.2014

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.51/2011 on the file of CDRF, Idukki order dated :28.09.2012)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                 : MEMBER

APPELLANTS

          1. The Manager,

          ICICI Bank Ltd,

          Kollam Branch,

          Rep.by its Manager,

          Thodupuzha Branch,

          Thodupuzha

          2. The Manager,

          ICICI Bank, Thodupuzha Branch,

          Thodupuzha,

          Idukki District

(By Adv.Sri.Lal.K.Joseph & Others)

RESPONDENTS

          1.Kuruvila Mathew,

          Plakkat House,

          Kumaly.P.O

          Idukki District

          2. Ram Manoj

          Nila Bhavanam,

          Panampetty,

          Poruvazhy.P.O

          Kollam

          (R1 by Adv.Dr.Mathew Kuzhalmandam)

          (R2 by Adv.Sri.Ram Mohan)

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellants were opposite parties 1 & 2 in CC.No.51/2011 in the CDRF, Idukki. The first respondent was the complainant. He alleged in his complaint that he had purchased Lancer car bearing Reg.No.KL 23 -7 which was hypothecated to the first opposite party, from the third opposite party The price agreed to between the complainant and the third opposite party was Rs.6,45,000/-. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.3,05,000/- to the third opposite party and remit the balance amount of Rs.3,40,000/- to the first opposite party within 30 days from the date of sale. The complainant therefore personally enquired with the first opposite party regarding the outstanding dues for the hypothecated car and the possibility of closing the loan on payment of Rs.3,40,000/-. The first opposite party affirmed the decision of the complainant and consented to the same. Hence the complainant performed his part of the contract by paying Rs.3,40,000/- to opposite parties 1 & 2. There after the complainant requested the opposite parties to cancel the hypothecation agreement and hand over the relevant documents of the vehicle to the complainant. But they failed to comply with the same in spite of repeated demands. So the complainant sent notices to the first opposite party requesting them to release the documents on cancellation of the hypothecation agreement. The failure to do so amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

          2.      Opposite parties 1 & 2 in their version contended that the complainant was not a consumer under section 2 (d) of the consumer protection act. The alleged purchase of the hypothecated vehicle was made without the knowledge or consent of the opposite parties. The complainant never availed any service from the opposite parties for consideration. The complaint is barred by limitation. It is admitted in the version that the third opposite party had purchased the lancer car bearing Reg.No KL 23 - 7 by availing a loan of Rs.7, 90,000/- from the Kollam branch of ICICI Bank on 25.10.2005. Repayment was agreed with interest in 47 monthly instalments of Rs.18,975/- each. The vehicle was hypothecated with the bank as per the agreement between the bank and the third opposite party. The latter is not entitled to sell or part with the possession of the vehicle during the existence of hypothecation. It is revealed that the third opposite party in collusion with the complainant had sold the hypothecated vehicle on 24.07.2007 without the knowledge or consent of the Bank with the fraudulent intention of cheating the bank. As on the date of filing version more than Rs.4,50,000/- is outstanding as due to the bank. The bank is entitled to recover possession of the vehicle to realize the amount due under the loan. The compalint is filed with the intention of avoiding payment of the said dues. The allegation that the first opposite party had consented to close the loan prematurely on receipt of Rs.3,