Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP





Consumer complaint No 342/06

Date of presentation: 18.11.2006

Date of decision: 20.3.2009



Subhash Chand son of mahajan Ram resident of VPO Dadh, Tehsil Palampur District kangra (HP)

Complainant Versus



1. ICICI Bank Ltd. ICICI Bank, Towers Bandra, Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051 India, through its Managing Director.

2. ICICI Bank Sandeep Kakkar, Branch Manager, Sandeep Kakkar and Company near Income Tax Office Palampur, District Kangra (HP)

Opposite parties



Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986



PRESIDENT: A.S.JASWAL

MEMBER: PABNA SHARMA & PARDEEP DOGRA



For the complainant: Sh. K.K. Chaudhary, Advocate.

For O.Ps: Sh. Amit Sood, Advocate



ORDER

A.S.JASWAL, PRESIDENT (ORAL)



In nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that on the allurement of opposite party No.2, he had obtained loan ofRs.35560/- for his vehicle i.e. Bajaj Pulsar bearing registration No.HP-37-5911 in the month of August, 2005. The said amount was to be refunded to opposite parties in twenty monthly instalments of Rs.2074/-each commencing from November 7, 2005. In order to realize the loan amount, the opposite parties had also received blank cheque book bearing No.964961 to 964980. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties had illegally snatched his vehicle on 27.10.2006 with the help of four Goondas, despite the fact that he was making the payment of loan amount regularly. In this manner, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

2. The claim of the complainant has been resisted and contested by the opposite parties by asserting that the complainant has not made the payment of installments regularly and that he had made huge defaults in paying the instalments of loan amount. Due to his inability to pay the monthly instalments, he himself had surrendered the motor cycle before the opposite parties and that the present complaint has been filed just to get possession of the motor cycle. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case carefully and minutely.

3. Both the parties, adduced evidence by way of affidavits and annexures in support of their contentions. The following points arise for determination:-

1. Whether O.Ps committed deficiency in service, as alleged? OPC

2. Final order

4. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the points for determination, our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:-

Point no.1: No

Final order: The complaint is dismissed as per operative part of the order

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

POINT No.1

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite parties have illegally and forcibly taken the possession of Motor cycle of the complainant with the help of four goondas, despite the fact that he was paying the instalments of loan amount regularly.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the complainant has made huge defaults in the payment of installments of loan amount and that due to his inability to pay the monthly instalments, he himself had surrendered the motor cycle before the opposite parties. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7. So far as the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is concerned, the complainant has failed to prove the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The contention of the complainant that the opposite parties had forcibly taken the possession of his motor cycle is not supported by any cogent and convincing evidence. Had the Motor cycle been taken by the opposite parties forcibly, the complainant would have lodged a criminal complaint against them, but in the present case, there is nothing on record to prove that the complainant had ever lodged a criminal complaint against the opposite parties. Even the complainant has not placed on record, the copy of the alleged agreement executed between him and the opposite parties to prove that he was paying the loan instalments regularly. . There is nothing on record to prove this fact. It is well settled law that a party who seeks relief must come to the court with clean hands. In the present case, from the pleadings, as well as annexures placed on record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant has not approached this Fourm with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. Thus, we are unable to hold that the opposite parties had taken the vehicle of complainant forcibly. In view of this, the defence of the opposite parties that the complainant himself had surrendered his motor cycle is reliable and inspires confidence.

8 Further, the material on record goes to show that there is a dispute between the parties, qua settlement of accounts, which cannot be decided by this Forum in a summary manner, as it requires elaborate and detailed inquiry by a civil Court. It has been held the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, reported in 1998(2) CLT-502 titled as Vishal Roadways versus Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd, that a case of settlement of accounts did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c) and (e) of the Act and that a civil suit was the proper remedy to recover the amount paid in excess. It has also been held by the Hon,ble M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, reported in 1995(1) CLT-6 titled as Parbhat Agro Versus Allahabad Bank, Gwalior, that when the case involves bulky documentary evidence, maintenance of accounts, Irregularities and where a case involves complicated question of fact requiring detailed examination and cross-examination of several witnesses and necessitates also the scrutiny of books of account and the settlement of accounts between the parties, the more appropriate remedy to be resorted to by the parties is to approach a Civil Court for adjudication of such issues. We are of the view that the complainant has the best remedy to approach a civil court for the redressal of his grievances.

9. In view of discussion made hereinabove, we are unable to hold that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Hence, point No.1 is answered in negative.

10. No other point argued or urged before us.

Relief

11. In view of our findings on point No.1 above, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant is left at liberty to seek the remedy before the appropriate civil court of law. The copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs and the file after due completion be consigned to the record-room.



Announced A.S.Jaswal

Date: 20.3.2009 President







Pabna Sharma Pardeep Dogra

Member Member