C.C. No.601/2007
Between:

Bojja Rajaiah, s/o.Hanumaiah, age: 52 years, occu: Employee,

r/o.Yellandu, Khammam District.

…Complainant
And

IndusInd Bank Limited, Chennai, rep. By its Managing Director,

Sudarshan Building, 92 (old No.86), Chamiers Road, Chennai-

600 018.
…Opposite party.

This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.Y.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.G.Satya Prasad, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that;

The complainant purchased Yamaha crux two wheeler bearing No.AP-20-G-1932 for an amount of Rs.44,364/- by obtaining loan from the opposite party and the opposite party fixed Rs.12,200/- towards interest on the loan amount and fixed Rs.1,886/- per month payable in 30 monthly installments. After obtaining the loan amount, the complainant paid Rs.12,454/- towards initial payment on 10-12-2001 and also given post dated cheques for remaining 30 installments. The complainant regularly paid the installments up to nine months. After nine installments the complainant made late payment for one month and the agents of opposite party forcibly taken away the vehicle on 7-6-2002 without prior intimation and sold the same without any intimation and inspite of repossession of the vehicle, the opposite party also collected an amount of Rs.2,210/-, but did not respond to give clearance certificate, as such the complainant requested many times and finally approached the opposite party on 26-3-2006 and demanded to give clearance certificate and instead of that, the opposite party had given a notice to the complainant by claiming Rs.11,720/- and intimated that they are going to initiate arbitration proceedings against the complainant. The complainant further submitted that the attitude of opposite party is against the principles of natural justice and it amounts to deficiency of service. As such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to give clearance certificate and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs.

Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed

i) Xerox copy of Loan agreement

ii) Statement of Accounts pertaining to the complainant

iii) Notice, dt.27-01-2007 issued by the opposite party

After receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter by denying the averments made in the complaint.

In the counter, the opposite party admitted that they financed vehicle loan to the complainant for an amount of Rs.44,364/- and Rs.12,200/- towards finance charges and according to the loan agreement, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.1,886/- towards monthly installment for about 30 months and on 10-12-2001 the complainant paid Rs.12,454/- towards initial payment and given 30 post dated cheques for remaining due amount and denied the other allegations, by submitting that the cheque bearing Nos.307760, 310782, 310783, 310784, 310785 and 310786, dt.7-4-2002, 7-6-2002, 7-7-2002, 7-8-2002, 7-9-2002 and 7-10-2002 respectively were dishonored and after payment of few installments, the complainant became regular defaulter and thereafter he never made any payments and submitted that in order to avoid future loss they repossessed the vehicle in the month of October, 2002 and after repossession of the vehicle, the opposite party addressed the letters, dt.8-10-2002 and 10-10-2002 for payment of outstanding dues, but there is no response from the complainant, the opposite party initiated the sale proceedings through auction and sold the vehicle for highest quotation and also submitted that they did not collect the amount of Rs.2,210/- after repossession of the vehicle and on 27-1-2007 they gave an arbitration notice for recovery of loss amount and further submitted that after sale proceedings complainant has to pay Rs.11,722/- towards overdue amount and an amount of Rs.15,192/- towards additional financial charges i.e. in total the complainant has to pay Rs.26,912/- to the opposite party. As such they did not give clearance certificate to the complainant and also submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

The complainant filed written arguments with the same averments as mentioned in the complaint.

In view of the above circumstances, the point that arose for consideration is, Whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?



P O I N T:

As seen from the above averments, it is an admitted fact that the opposite party financed an amount of Rs.44,364/- towards vehicle loan to the complainant and fixed a sum of Rs.12,200/- towards interest on the said loan and as per the loan agreement, the complainant has to pay total due amount within 30 installments and upon which the monthly installment is fixed at Rs.1,886/-, but it is the case of the complainant that the opposite party illegally taken away the vehicle and sold the same without prior intimation, even though the complainant made payments without any delay for about nine months and made late payment for only 10th installment, but on the other hand the opposite party resisted the case of the complainant and taken a plea that after payment of few installments, the complainant became regular defaulter and thereafter he never made any payments. As such the opposite party repossessed the vehicle in the month of October,2002 i.e. after 9 installments, that too after dishonour of cheque bearing Nos.307760, 310782, 310783, 310784, 310785 and 310786, dt.7-4-2002, 7-6-2002, 7-7-2002, 7-8-2002, 7-9-2002 and 7-10-2002 respectively and addressed two letters dated 8-10-2002 and 10-10-2002 for settlement of due amount, but there is no response from the complainant, the opposite party sold the vehicle for highest quotation to avoid future loss. As such there is no deficiency on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint. But to resist the same, the complainant did not take any steps to disprove the contentions of the opposite party and did not furnish any material except filing of written arguments and also failed to file any proof, if there is any deviations committed by the opposite party against the loan agreement and as such we feel that there is no merits in the present complaint and the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.