Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that on 29.11.2019, the complainant purchased a commercial vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no.PB-04AA-3299, model 2018 from PKF Finance Ltd @ 16,00,000/- for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The complainant purchased the said vehicle after getting a loan on high interest and complainant wants to repay the said loan amount and due to this reason complainant approached to the Opposite Party Bank. The Opposite Party Bank assured the complainant that they will sanction the loan amount as per their necessity. In this regard the complainant handed over the necessary documents related to vehicle including original registration copy of vehicle to Opposite Party Bank. In the year, 2020, Opposite Party bank informed the complainant that they sanctioned loan amount and also told about the entry of loan on the registration certificate of the above said vehicle. The complainant alongwith her husband namely Harjinder Singh visited the Opposite Party bank to confirm the loan amount in bank account, but complainant bank neither opened the bank account nor transferred the loan amount. After passing some days, the complainant again contacted the Opposite Party and requested to transfer the loan amount, but they failed to transfer the loan amount. Then complainant requested the bank to remove the loan entry of Opposite Party bank on original registration certificate of above said vehicle, but the Opposite Party never bothered to the request of the complainant. Thereafter in the month of June, 2020 during the lockdown, complainant visited the Opposite Party bank regarding the same matter, but Opposite Parties never pursued the matter. Alleged that the complainant was unable to apply fresh loan against the said RC of vehicle because of loan entry of Opposite Party bank on the said RC. The complainant sent various emails to Opposite Party Bank and to its higher authorities regarding this matter and also served a legal notice, but to no effect. Alleged that there is huge negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Bank for not giving proper services to the complainant and not transferred the loan amount in the account of the complainant. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to erase the hypothecation from the original Registration Certificate and to direct Opposite Party No.1 to return all the original documents.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and counsel fee.           

2.       Upon service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties, hence Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte.

3.       In order to prove the case, the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex.C1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

4.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record.

5.       The case of the complainant is that she is the owner of Truck bearing registration no.PB-04AA-3299, model 2018, which is duly financed by PKF Finance Ltd for an amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. However, allegation of the complainant is that he purchased the said vehicle on high rate of interest and complainant in order to repay the said loan amount accordingly approached Opposite Party to avail the loan and handed over all the necessary documents related to vehicle including original registration copy of vehicle in question. Contended that the Opposite Party passed the loan against the vehicle of the complainant, but did not disburse/transfer any amount in the account of the complainant, but however made a loan entry in the original RC of the vehicle in question. Contended further that the complainant sent various emails to Opposite Party Bank and to its higher authorities requesting either to transfer the loan amount or to remove the loan entry from the RC of the vehicle, but they failed to do so.

6.       We have carefully gone through the record. The complainant has produced on record copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question, in which, it has been mentioned “Hypothecation by Axis Bank w.e.f 03.01.2020”.  Further from the last para of Ex.C2 at page no.2, it is proved that the complainant has given a loan application through Gurdeep Singh from Axis Bank and Opposite Party bank passed a loan but did not disburse any amount to complainant, but however got added entry of hypothecation on her RC. The contents of that para are reproduced as under:-

“I had given a loan application through Gurdeep Singh from Axis Bank on my truck pb04Aa3299 a year and half ago. He got the loan passed but didn’t given me a single rupee, he also added HP to my RC. I asked them many times to give NOC but they have not deducted HP yet which hurt me a lot because I couldn’t get the loan from any other bank. Please deduct HP from my RC.”

7.       Perusal of the record reveals that in Ex.C2, there are references of two emails dated 09.07.2021 and dated 15.07.2021 duly sent by Opposite Party bank. For the sake of convenience, the contents of said emails are produced as under:-

Email dated 09.07.2021

This is with reference to your mail dated July 07,2021, addressed to the office of our MD and CEO Mr.Amitabh Chaudhry regarding your loan account.

We understand that you hold a loan account with our bank and require assistance for same.

Email dated 51.07.2021

This is with reference to your mail dated July 10, 2021, addressed to the office of our MD and CEO Amitabh Chaudhry regarding your concern of loan account in the name of Gurdeep Singh.

We understand that you do not hold a loan account or any relationship with our bank and require assistance for same. We tried calling your phone number however could not establish contact.

From the perusal of aforesaid emails it reveals that in the email dated 09.07.2021, they have written that complainant hold a loan account with their bank, whereas in the email dated 15.07.2021, they have written that complainant has no loan account or any relationships with their bank. In this way, there are contradictions in both the emails. Besides copy of registration certificate and aforesaid emails there is nothing on record revealing the actual facts of the case, whether there is any outstanding amount against the complainant due to which entry of hypothecation is made on the RC of the vehicle in question or whether the Opposite Party axis bank has made a misrepresentation with the complainant and illegally get the entry of hypothecation in the RC of the vehicle in question without sanctioning any loan amount. On the other hand, opposite Party opt not to appear and contest the proceedings.

8.       In the given eventuality, we deem it appropriate to pass the order with following directions:-

i)        If there is any outstanding amount pending against the loan towards complainant due to which Opposite Party No.1 has made the entry of hypothecation in the RC of the vehicle in question, then Opposite Party No.1 is directed to give the details of outstanding amount to the complainant against the loan availed by her and after receiving the total outstanding loan amount, if any, directed to issue NOC to the complainant regarding the said loan account and also to assist the complainant for getting removed the entry of hypothecation from the RC of the vehicle in question.

ii)       Or if the Opposite Party No.1 vide misrepresentation or illegally get entered the entry of hypothecation in the RC of the vehicle in question of the complainant without transferring any loan amount in the account of the complainant, then the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to get removed the entry of hypothecation from the RC of the vehicle in question of the complainant and also to issue NOC regarding the same and to return the original documents, if any, received by it.  

iii)      Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay compository cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be paid to complainant as compensation for deficient services and litigation expenses.

iv)      Opposite Party No.1 shall comply with above directions within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, it shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for non compliance of the order.

v)       Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to remove the hypothecation from the RC of the vehicle in question of complainant next within 15 days from the receipt of relevant documents.

In case, the Opposite Parties failed to comply with the order within stipulated period, the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be paid by the Opposite Party at fault. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission