S. Krishnan, M.A., M.Ed.,

s/o Seerangan,

1046A, Jai Nagar, Trichy Road,

Namakkal.



2. Tamil Nadu Consumer Society by

its Secretary, K.Subbarayan,

40B-1, Sendamangalam Road,

Namakkal.1 .. Complainants



/versus/

1. Baskar,

c/o Indus Ind Bank Limited,

Bhuvaneswari Complex,

Dr. Sankaran Road,(Near State Bank)

Namakkal.



2. N. Subramani,

Kongu Housing Loan Service Centre,

5/153, Railway Junction Main Road.

Opposite to L.K.H.F.L. Road,

Annapuram, Salem. … Opposite parties



This complaint coming on 15th day of April 2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Thiru K. Subbarayan, representative of complainants and opposite party No.1 appeared in person and the second opposite party has chosen to remain exparte and after hearing the complainant and after perusing the documents and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following order:
ORDER

1. The crux of the complaint is : -

The 1st complainant is a retired teacher and the 2nd complainant is a voluntary consumer organization representing the 1st complainant. The 1st opposite party operates like agent for banks, his residential address is not known to the complainant. Both the opposite parties works as mediators for availing loan from the banks. The first complainant intended to obtain loan to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs from the bank for construction of house. Both the opposite parties visited the first complainant’s house on 15.2.2004 and promised to obtain housing loan from the bank of first complainant’s choice and has collected Rs.5,000/- and a copy of document and salary slip.

This fact is known to the first complainant’s friend who was at the house at that point of time. Inspite of several attempts they never gave any concrete reply and gave evasive replies. Both the opposite parties pretending as if they will facilitate obtaining loans and cheating. The second complainant has set notice to the opposite parties and they over phone promised to return the amount but nothing has happened. The complainant states that the act of the opposite parties is amounts to deficiency in service and has lodged this complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.5,000/- with interest, compensation and cost.



2. The first opposite party has filed written version and the contentions in brief is:-

The first opposite party states that he was working as Branch Manager in ICICI bank for the period from June 2003 to May 2005. The first complainant has approached him to transfer his loan from Namakkal Teachers House Building Society to ICICI Bank, Namakkal. The first opposite party clearly told his that as per their norms they do not transfer loans pending in Society. When he requested for alternative the first opposite party had told him to make an attempt at LIC Housing Finance Limited. Sometime later the first complainant again came and the first opposite party through his friend has got the housing loan transferred to HDFC Bank. He has not received money from the first complainant and as such he is not anyway connect with the complaint and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.



3. The second opposite party has been set exparte.



4. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what relief the complainants are entitled for?



5. POINT : The complainants to prove their case has filed proof affidavit along with 4 document and the same has been marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. The first opposite party has filed proof affidavit without documents.



6. The first complainant is a retired teacher and the second complainant is a voluntary consumer organization representing the first complainant. On perusal of the complaint it can be noticed that the second complainant has not signed in the complaint and the space ear marked for 2nd complainant’s signature is vacant. Hence it is not known whether the present complaint is filed with the knowledge of the second complainant.



7. The first complainant has alleged that the first opposite party acts like agent for banks and his residential address is not known to the complainant and both the opposite parties works as mediators for availing loan from the banks. The first complainant has stated that he intended to obtain loan to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs from the bank for construction of house and both the opposite parties visited the complainant’s house on 15.2.2004 and promised to obtain housing loan from the bank of complainant’s choice and has collected Rs. 5,000/- and a copy of document and salary slip. The first complainant has stated in the complaint that he does not even know the residential/office address of the first opposite party. The immediate question that arises is that then how the first complainant came in contact with the opposite parties.

No explanation has been provided by the first complainant in this regard. The complainant has stated that both the opposite parties came to their house and assured to get loan and he had given the document copy, salary slip and paid Rs.5,000/-. It has not be explained by the first complainant that he himself being retired teacher how he gave copy of the document, salary slip and Rs.5,000/- to a stranger and that too without any proper receipt. The first opposite party has categorically denied having received any consideration as alleged by the first complainant and has contended that he was working as Branch Manager with the ICICI Bank for the period from June 2003 to May 2005 and that point of time the first complainant has approached him to transfer his loan from Namakkal Teachers House Building Society to his ICICI Bank and he told him that as per their norms they do not transfer loans pending in Society.

The first opposite party has further contended that when the first complainant asked for an alternative he advised him to approach the LIC Housing Finance Limited and finally he had referred him to HDFC Bank and the first complainant got his loan transferred. The first complainant has not denied this facts. The first opposite party has categorically denied that he has not received any consideration from the first complainant as alleged in the complaint. The first complainant has stated that his friend who was at the house at that point of time know about payment of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite parties but neither the name of the friend nor his address has been mentioned in the first instance that is in the complaint. On perusal of Exhibit A1, it can be noticed of one Mr.Krishnan has stated in a verified statement that he was with the complainant when the payment was made to the opposite parties. But Exhibit A1 cannot be treated and accepted as affidavit it is mere a verified stated not solemnly affirmed and signed or attested.

Further, the first complainant has stated that 2nd complainant has sent notice to the opposite parties and they over phone promised to return the amount. But the second complainant has not been examined and any evidence being let out in support of the same by the first complainant. There is no documentary proof to establish that consideration has been paid to the opposite parties. In the absence of any consideration being paid to the opposite parties the first complainant cannot be construed as a consumer and there is no consumer dispute. On perusal of the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents, this Forum holds that payment of consideration to the opposite parties has not been established by the first complainant and there is no material evidence to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Point is answered accordingly.



8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Harmel Kaur w/o late S. Hardev Singh resident of village Basemi, PO Malakpur, Ludhiana at present Quarter no.96, Police Colony, Jamalpur Awana, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

Complainant.

Vs.

IndusInd Bank Limited (formerly known as Ashok Leyland Finance Limited), Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its branch manager.

Opposite party





O R D E R








1- Complainant purchase a motor cycle bearing enginer no.0056431, chasis no.58056362(registration no.PB-10-BP-2001) and got the same financed from the oppoiste party, by entering into an agreement dated 4.5.2005 and also paid margin money of Rs.4878/- to them. At the time of agreement, her signatures were obtained by the oppoiste party on many blank papers, forms, letters etc. Due to unavoidable circumstances, she could not pay monthly installments and post dated cheques issued by her to the oppoite party got dishonoured. But her attention was always bonafide and requested the oppoiste party to cooperate with her and that would clear the entire loan amount. But the opposite party misused their position, exercised, pressurising tactics.


Consequently, repossessed the vehicle on 29.4.2006 against wishes of the complainant. This they did by way of coersion, exercising undue influence. The repossession of the vehicle injured reputation of the complainant, causing great shock to her. Subsequently, the opposite paty issued notice dated 9.10.2006, demanding Rs.15198/- plus annual finance charges @ 3% p.m. Then through that notice of oppoiste party, came to know that they had sold her vehicle without any information to her. Her requests not to process their illegal notice dated 9.10.2006 were not cared by the opposite party.


Hence, moved an application under Right to Information Act and sought details from the opposite party qua sale of the vehicle, then came to know about sale of the vehicle and details of Rs.15198/-, demanded vide notice dated 9.10.2006. The opposite party gave false reply to her application. Hence, for causing harassment, mental tension and agony, sought compensation of Rs.2 lacs alongwith Rs.11000/- as litigation costs by filing the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also sought quashing of the notice dated 9.10.2006.

2- The opposite party, in their reply, admitted financing motor cycle of the complainant and that loan of Rs.58716/- was disbursed, which she had agreed to repay in monthly installments of Rs.1631/- each vide agreement dated 4.5.2005. But from very beginning, the complainant did not adhere to the finance repayment discipline and cheques issued by her qua repayment, got dishonoured. As complainant herself had breached the terms and condtions of agreement dated 4.5.2005, so the vehicle was repossessed after following due process of law.


That vehicle was sold through independent agency E-BAY/BAAZI.COM for Rs.29500/- on 19.5.2006. Before sale, complainant was informed by prior sale notice dated 11.5.2006 which was sent to her under UPC. Thereafter, complainant was informed that bank suffered loss on sale to the extent of Rs.15198/- plus 3% p.a. of additional finance charges vide notice dated 9.10.2006, which was demanded vide notice dated 9.10.2006. The complainant has not made payment despite notice. Hence, claim of the complainant is frivolous, liable to be dismissed.

3- Parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- It is admitted case of the complainant that after availing finance for purchase of motor-cycle, she failed to pay installments as agreed. Agreement (Ex.D1 dated 4.5.2005) and that cheque issued qua installments to the oppoiste party got dishonoured. Thereafter, same vehicle was reposssessed by the oppoiste party.

5- Plea of the oppoiste party is that vehicle was repossessed in terms of the agreement in accordnace with law and adopting proper procedure of law. Inventory at the time of repossession of the vehicle on 29.4.2006 Annexure-A/11 was prepared. Thereafter, the oppoiste party sold the re-possessed vehicle, after issuing pre sale notice Ex.D2 dated 1.12.2006 to the complainant, sent to her under postal certificate Ex.D3. Vide notice Ex.D2, complainant was called upon to settle the contract in full by paying the amount of Rs.21980/- within 7 days failing which, intimated her to sell the vehicle on her own risk and peril. Consequent to receipt of notice Ex.D2, complainant moved an application Annexure-A/3(Ex.D4) dated 1.12.2006 under Right to Information Act to the oppoiste party demanding certain information and documents, which was replied vide reply Ex.D5 dated 14.12.2006 by the oppoiste party.

6- We may say that the oppoiste party has brought sufficient material on record that the financed vehicle was reposessed by them in conformity with law after issuing letter of surrender Ex.D7 dated 29.4.2006 to the complaiannt. Thereafter, the same was repossessed on 29.4.2006 vide inventory Ex.D8 which was also sent by the representative of the complainant. It is, as such, manifest in these circumstances, that the oppoiste party never used force or engaged gundaas or muslemen to reposess the financed vehicle forcibly. Rather, they repossessed the same when complainant failed to abide by terms and conditions of the agreement Ex.D1, especially when repayment cheques got repeatedly bounced. Thereafter, they called upon the complainant to deliver possession of the vehicle and consequently, it was repossessed. Then, in order to realise the financed amount and watch their interest, issued notice to the complainant to clear the debt, failing which, conveyed to her that the vehicle would be sold at her own risk and peril.


Thereafter, the complainant never made any payment and consequently, vehicle was re-sold. Despite such sale, certain amount still remains due from the complainant to the oppoiste party, who then issued demand notice Annexure-A/12 dated 9.10.2006 to the complainant asking for balance amount of Rs.15198/- plus additional fianance charges @ 3% p.m. In these circumstances, this notice Annexure-A/12 can not be construed to be arbitrary and illegal or in-contravention of agreement between the parties. Neither the opposite party can be termed guilty of mis-conduct or resorting to unfair trade pactice qua its own consumer. Consequently, we find no merits in the complaint and as a result, the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties. File be completed and consigned to record.

Harmel Kaur w/o late S. Hardev Singh resident of village Basemi, PO Malakpur, Ludhiana at present Quarter no.96, Police Colony, Jamalpur Awana, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

Complainant.

Vs.

IndusInd Bank Limited (formerly known as Ashok Leyland Finance Limited), Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its branch manager.

Opposite party









O R D E R






1- Complainant purchase a motor cycle bearing enginer no.0056431, chasis no.58056362(registration no.PB-10-BP-2001) and got the same financed from the oppoiste party, by entering into an agreement dated 4.5.2005 and also paid margin money of Rs.4878/- to them. At the time of agreement, her signatures were obtained by the oppoiste party on many blank papers, forms, letters etc. Due to unavoidable circumstances, she could not pay monthly installments and post dated cheques issued by her to the oppoite party got dishonoured.


But her attention was always bonafide and requested the oppoiste party to cooperate with her and that would clear the entire loan amount. But the opposite party misused their position, exercised, pressurising tactics. Consequently, repossessed the vehicle on 29.4.2006 against wishes of the complainant. This they did by way of coersion, exercising undue influence. The repossession of the vehicle injured reputation of the complainant, causing great shock to her. Subsequently, the opposite paty issued notice dated 9.10.2006, demanding Rs.15198/- plus annual finance charges @ 3% p.m. Then through that notice of oppoiste party, came to know that they had sold her vehicle without any information to her. Her requests not to process their illegal notice dated 9.10.2006 were not cared by the opposite party.


Hence, moved an application under Right to Information Act and sought details from the opposite party qua sale of the vehicle, then came to know about sale of the vehicle and details of Rs.15198/-, demanded vide notice dated 9.10.2006. The opposite party gave false reply to her application. Hence, for causing harassment, mental tension and agony, sought compensation of Rs.2 lacs alongwith Rs.11000/- as litigation costs by filing the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also sought quashing of the notice dated 9.10.2006.

2- The opposite party, in their reply, admitted financing motor cycle of the complainant and that loan of Rs.58716/- was disbursed, which she had agreed to repay in monthly installments of Rs.1631/- each vide agreement dated 4.5.2005. But from very beginning, the complainant did not adhere to the finance repayment discipline and cheques issued by her qua repayment, got dishonoured. As complainant herself had breached the terms and condtions of agreement dated 4.5.2005, so the vehicle was repossessed after following due process of law.


That vehicle was sold through independent agency E-BAY/BAAZI.COM for Rs.29500/- on 19.5.2006. Before sale, complainant was informed by prior sale notice dated 11.5.2006 which was sent to her under UPC. Thereafter, complainant was informed that bank suffered loss on sale to the extent of Rs.15198/- plus 3% p.a. of additional finance charges vide notice dated 9.10.2006, which was demanded vide notice dated 9.10.2006. The complainant has not made payment despite notice. Hence, claim of the complainant is frivolous, liable to be dismissed.

3- Parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- It is admitted case of the complainant that after availing finance for purchase of motor-cycle, she failed to pay installments as agreed. Agreement (Ex.D1 dated 4.5.2005) and that cheque issued qua installments to the oppoiste party got dishonoured. Thereafter, same vehicle was reposssessed by the oppoiste party.

5- Plea of the oppoiste party is that vehicle was repossessed in terms of the agreement in accordnace with law and adopting proper procedure of law. Inventory at the time of repossession of the vehicle on 29.4.2006 Annexure-A/11 was prepared. Thereafter, the oppoiste party sold the re-possessed vehicle, after issuing pre sale notice Ex.D2 dated 1.12.2006 to the complainant, sent to her under postal certificate Ex.D3. Vide notice Ex.D2, complainant was called upon to settle the contract in full by paying the amount of Rs.21980/- within 7 days failing which, intimated her to sell the vehicle on her own risk and peril. Consequent to receipt of notice Ex.D2, complainant moved an application Annexure-A/3(Ex.D4) dated 1.12.2006 under Right to Information Act to the oppoiste party demanding certain information and documents, which was replied vide reply Ex.D5 dated 14.12.2006 by the oppoiste party.

6- We may say that the oppoiste party has brought sufficient material on record that the financed vehicle was reposessed by them in conformity with law after issuing letter of surrender Ex.D7 dated 29.4.2006 to the complaiannt. Thereafter, the same was repossessed on 29.4.2006 vide inventory Ex.D8 which was also sent by the representative of the complainant. It is, as such, manifest in these circumstances, that the oppoiste party never used force or engaged gundaas or muslemen to reposess the financed vehicle forcibly. Rather, they repossessed the same when complainant failed to abide by terms and conditions of the agreement Ex.D1, especially when repayment cheques got repeatedly bounced.