HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 31.05.2013 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, in F.A. No. 590 of 2008 arising out of the Order dated 25.04.2008 in C.C. No. 297 of 2006 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’.

2.     The Petitioner herein, IndusInd Bank, was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Bank’.

The Respondent herein, Mr. Gursharan Singh, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

3.     Heard the learned Counsel for the Bank and the Complainant in person, and perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 25.04.2008 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 31.05.2013 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Petition.

4.     The Complainant’s case, succinctly put, is that he took a loan from the Bank to finance a Truck. He paid the due installment of Rs. 25,000/- on 28.02.2006. The Bank forcibly seized his Truck on 18.03.2006 without any prior notice or intimation. The Police did not allow him to lodge first information report of commission of criminal offence of illegal seizure. The Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum on 23.05.2006. The Bank released his truck on 11.08.2006, i.e. after about 5 months of its forcible seizure, on his paying an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Still, the Bank, unilaterally and arbitrarily, unjustly and wrongly, demanded a further amount of Rs. 70,863.82p from him.   

5.     The District Forum appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 25.04.2008 allowed the Complaint.

Extracts from the appraisal made by the District Forum are reproduced below: 

15.     In the instant case, there are two affidavits, one of the driver and another of his brother of the complainant as well as of the complainant himself, in support of his allegations that the truck was seized forcibly by the employees of the respondent bank. Gurdeep Singh, driver of the complainant, in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and Sh. Pritpal Singh brother of the complainant in his affidavit Ex. CW2/A have stated that the truck was taken into possession forcibly by the officials of the respondent bank, despite their objection and protest. Though, Sh,. Varun Kumar Jha, branch manager of the respondent of the respondent in his affidavit, has stated having possess the truck legally under the higher purchase agreement. But when force was used and the truck was taken into possession, through the complainant was paying installments regularly, we have no option but to believe the complainant that the truck was seized forcibly by the employees of the respondent when it was at Ludhiana. So it is established that seizure of the truck was illegal and forcible and the action of the respondent was not justified in impounding or repossessing the truck.

16.     The respondents probably was illegal in above action and consequently, vide telegram Ex. R.4 intimated the SHO, Police Station, Divn. No. 6, repossessing the truck and not entertain any theft case or other cases against them. This shows the guilty conscience of their mind and they were aware that action on their part was wrong and so apprised the police not to entertain any complaint against them. The complainant had also intimated the respondent vide letter Ex. R.5 that he would pay balance amount in time and on default, they may repossess the vehicle. As referred earlier, he had not committed default when we referred in account statement Ex. R7.

17.     Consequently, for illegal act of the respondent, the complainant certainly, would be competent for compensation.

18.     - - -

19.     The truck remained under occupation and seizure of the respondent for about 5 months. It was seized on 18.03.2006 and released to the complainant on 11.08.2006 after some understanding between the parties, under which the complainant deposited Rs. 1,25,000/- with the respondent. It is during conciliation of the matter that settlement was effected between the parties for Rs. 1,25,000/- as reflected from the order sheet dated 3.8.2006. The complainant sought time for arranging money on the next date i.e. 11.08.2006. This Forum passed the order directing the respondents to release the truck to the complainant subject to deposit of Rs. 1,25,000/- by him. Qua it statements of the parties were also recorded. This means and reflected that on 11.08.2006 only balance amount due from the complainant was Rs. 1,25,000/- which was paid by him and accepted by the respondent. The respondent consequently, reflected receipt of that amount in statement of account Ex.R7. Though from this statement on 11.08.2006. It means whatever was due que the truck from the complainant, he not only paid that amount but also in excess thereon.

20.     On account of wrong and illegally seizure of the truck of the complainant, the complainant failed to ply his truck for about 5 months and he deserves compensation on account of loss suffered due to non-running his truck. We feel awarding Rs. 20,000/- p.m. and Rs. 1 lac (one lac) for 5 months on account of loss of earning by the complainant would be just and sufficient to compensate him. Certainly, he would have earned that amount during 5 months, had the truck not been forcibly and illegally seized by the officials of the respondent bank.

21.     Even after the settlement and paying Rs 125000/- on 11.08.2006 by the complainant, the respondent still showed AFC balance from the complainant of Rs. 70,863.82p. This balance as reflected in statement of account against the complainant, as such would be contrary to the understanding and agreement between the parties effected in this Forum on 11.08.2006. When the entire balance amount was settled at Rs. 1,25,000/- on 11.08.2006, there was no question of adding anything else in this amount, subsequently, by the respondent. This unilaterally showing Rs. 70,863.82p from the complainant is unjust arbitrary and illegally and consequently, the respondent cannot enforce such demand against the complainant.

22.     For harassment and thrusting this unnecessary litigation on the complainant, he deserves to be compensated and consequently, the respondent bank is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment to him and also litigation cost of Rs. 2000/-.

23.     Sequel to above discussion, the respondent bank is ordered to pay Rs. 1 lac (One Lac) for loss of earning by the complainant, due to forcible and illegal seizure of the truck, Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and litigation costs Rs. 2000/- the complainant. They are also ordered not to recover Rs. 70863.82p/- from the complainant, as shown still due from the complainant in their statement of account. Order be complied within 30 days of the receipt of copy of order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the entire amount with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment. Copy of order be supplied to the parties. File be consigned to record room.

(as per the translated copy furnished by the Bank with its Petition)

(emphasis supplied)   

6.     The Bank filed an Appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the State Commission. The State Commission again appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 31.05.2013 dismissed the Appeal.

Extracts from the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below:

14.     The appellant bank has placed on record the statement of account Ex. R-7 as per which, on 11.08.2006, a sum of Rs. 1.25 lacs was paid and on that day, a sum of Rs. 82,872/- was outstanding against the respondent and after making the payment, nothing remained due, but still the appellant bank showed the balance of Rs. 70,862-82p which the appellant bank has failed to explain. The respondent as well as the Branch Manager of the appellant bank made the statements before the District Forum. On that day, the respondent had made the statement that he is ready to pay Rs. 1.25 lacs for the release of the truck in question and the Branch Manager of the appellant bank also stated that he is ready to release the vehicle in question to the respondent subject to deposit of Rs. 1.25 lacs in the bank. He further stated that the dispute regarding the remaining amount shall be decided at the time of final disposal. No amount due was mentioned at the time of making the statement after deducting Rs. 1.25 lacs. Perusal of the statement of account Ex. R-7 of the appellant bank shows that the instalments were being paid and the amount of instalments was gradually decreasing and on 11.08.2006, a sum of Rs. 82,872/- was shown outstanding and against the columns of ‘Delay’ and ‘AFC’, ‘1’ and ‘87.50’ was shown respectively, but thereafter without any logic and reason, the total AFC accrued shown as Rs. 1,31,154/- and the total AFC collected was shown as Rs. 60,290-94 and the AFC balance was shown as Rs. 70,863-82. The appellant bank has added these amounts on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without any reasoning or detail and the act and conduct of the appellant bank through its officials seems to be noting, but fleecing the poor and innocent people, who in order to earn their livelihood, take loan and even after the repayment, they are not spared. The order passed by the District Forum is a speaking and detailed order. The amount demanded is not, at all, justified and the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.

15.     In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 25.04.2008 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.

(as per the translated copy furnished by the Bank with its Petition)

(emphasis supplied)

7.     The impugned Order dated 31.05.2013 of the State Commission is well-appraised and well-reasoned. The two Fora below have arrived at concurrent findings. The respective appraisal made by the two Fora, quoted in paras 5 and 6 above, is particularly noteworthy.

8.     It is noted that the Complainant has been able to prove the two fundamental questions in his case before both the Fora below:

one: After he had paid the due instalment of Rs. 25,000/- on 28.02.2006, the Bank illegally seized his Truck forcibly on 18.03.2006 without prior notice or intimation.

two: After its forcible seizure on 18.03.2006, the Truck was released on 11.08.2006 only after he paid an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-; it, thus, belies reason and logic that a further demand of Rs. 70,863.82p was still outstanding.

9.     Within the scope and ambit of Section 21(b) of the Act no palpable error in appreciating the evidence by the two Fora below is visible, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision.

10.   The Award made by the District Forum, to pay total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 1,30,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant and not to recover the further (wrongly) claimed amount of Rs. 70,863.82p from him, appears just and equitable.

11.   On the face of it, ex facie, no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible, as may call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

12.   The Act is for “better protection of the interests of consumers”, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons speaks of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”.

The complaint case was filed before the District Forum in 2006, the District Forum decided the case in 2008, the Bank appealed before the State Commission in 2008, the State Commission decided the Appeal in 2013, the Bank filed the instant Revision Petition before this Commission in 2014, we are now in 2020. 

This is a case of a bank, with wherewithal, on the one side, and an ordinary common ‘consumer’, without wherewithal, on the other side.

It has been well-established in the adjudication before the two Fora below that, after the Complainant had paid the due instalment of his loan, the Bank illegally seized his Truck, retained it with itself for about 5 months, then released it after the Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-, and then raised a further (wrong) demand for Rs. 70,863.82p.  

After concurrent findings having been returned by the two Fora below, the Bank agitated before the third Forum, i.e. this Commission, for a (protracted) period of about 6 years, where, too, its case fails miserably.

All this is not viewed favourably, this inter alia also necessitates caution and cost.

13.   The Revision Petition is dismissed with stern advice of caution to the Bank through its Chief Executive by imposition of cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh), out of which Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) shall be paid to the Complainant and Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) shall be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.

The impugned Order dated 31.05.2013 of the State Commission is confirmed. The Award made by the District Forum, as contained in its Order dated 25.04.2008, and as upheld and affirmed by the State Commission vide its Order dated 31.05.2013, is sustained.

14.   The amount deposited by the Bank with the District Forum in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 27.03.2014, along with interest if any accrued thereon, shall be utilized by the District Forum, as per the due procedure, towards satisfaction of its Award and of the cost imposed herein (refer para 13 above).

15.   A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the District Forum, to the Chief Executive of the Bank, the Petitioner herein, and to the Complainant, the Respondent herein, within three days of its pronouncement.