Date of filing:27.09.2023

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:18.09.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:18^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

PRESENT

Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.1909/2023

O R D E R

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by complainant in CC/154/2022 on the file of DCDRC, Dharwad, aggrieved by the order dated 11.08.2023. (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission)

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.

3. Now the points that arise for consideration of the Commission would be:

Whether impugned order dated 11.08.2023 passed in CC/154/2022 does call for an interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

4. At the very outset, Commission to make mention the relief sought by complainant in her complaint against OP Nos.1 and 2.  She has sought direction to be issued against OP Nos.1 and 2 to leave the vehicle from the auction list dated 28.09.2022 and handover the vehicle to the complainant in proper condition and issue No Due Certificate after accepting outstanding loan amount as on 23.05.2022 and the loan account No.89132336609 and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for rendering deficiency in service and towards unfair trade practice and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of proceedings. 

5. The OP Nos.1 and 2 have contested the complaint. They denied allegation of rendered deficiency in service and their practice of unfair trade in respect of seizure of vehicle purchased by Late.Ganapatirao S Munji, by availing loan through OP Nos.1 and 2. 

6. In view of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint, District Commission held, an enquiry, found no case of OPs rendering deficiency in service and recorded negative finding, however while passing final order allowed the complaint in part and directed complainant to pay the outstanding loan dues in 03 equal monthly installments to OP Bank  and on she paying 01^st installment OPs Bank shall takes steps for release of the vehicle No.KA-25-MD-2493 forthwith to the complainant in the same conditions as it was seized.  Further directed complainant shall pay the remaining 02 installments within 02 months from the date of release of the vehicle respectively.  Further directed complainant shall give proper security to OP Bank for payment of remaining 02 installments and OP Bank shall give No Due Certificate to the vehicle and to give intimation to concerned RTO for change of RC in the name of complainant in respect of the vehicle and ordered OPs Bank shall bear all the expenses of seizer and parking charges of the vehicle till the time of release.  Thus, from the order passed by the District Commission, we could say, when complainant in her complaint itself has not sought for has been granted, even after recording negative finding on the point of rendering deficiency of services, which in our view not only contrary to facts but also law which has to be reconsidered in this appeal, since the  Scope of Consumer Commission is narrower did not give wide powers alike civil court and the high court to mould reliefs to do justice to the parties in a comprehensive way.  In other words when District Commission held for the reasons of nonpayment of loan dues of vehicle bearing no.KA-25-MD-2493 was seized by OPs and such seizure act of OPs cannot be termed as either illegal or otherwise or deficiency of service, giving directions to complainant to pay the outstanding loan dues in 03 equal monthly installments to OP Bank and on such paying 01^st installment bank shall take steps for release of vehicle forthwith and again to give proper security for payment of remaining 02 installments is nothing but travelling  beyond the scope of CPA.

7. Further the District Commission directed OPs to give No Due Certificate to the vehicle and to give intimation to the concerned RTO for change of RC in the name of the complainant with other documents is again does not survive for consideration, when recorded negative finding on the point of rendering deficiency in service.  In other words, they are all legal consequences which would arise only after payment of dues   cannot be considered herein this complaint, wherein complainant has shown to be the defaulter and still due certain amount to OP. The relief sought   against OPs to leave the vehicle from the auction list dated 28.09.2022 could be said does not arise and further issuance of “No Due Certificate” in favour of the loanee or his nominee/the complainant herein, if she would pay the outstanding loan amount, question of seizure of the vehicle does not arise at all or question of denial of issuance of No Due Certificate also not arise at all. In our view all such questions could be said hypothetical, which cannot be granted in favour of the complaint, in a Consumer Complaint.

8. Learned counsel for appellant/complainant submits that no proper notice was served on complainant before seizure of the vehicle.  It is an undisputed fact,  between Mr.Ganapatirao S Munji and OPs a Composite Hypothecation Agreement was arrived at, which provides facilities for the loanee to pay the loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in 60 EMI of Rs.31,871/- of which first 59 installments and the last installment is of Rs.29,246/-.  According to learned counsel for appellant, last installment payable would be on 23.07.2026 and even before expiry of the loan term; OPs have illegally seized the vehicle.  It is also to be considered   Guarantee Agreement was also obtained from one Smt.Akkamahadevi M Karjagi, W/o Manoj Karjagi of Hubli and she stood as surety to the loan granted to the husband of the complainant.  In our view, it is for the OP Bank to recover the loan amount either from Principal Borrower or the Guarantor or from both, yet District Commission directed complainant to pay outstanding dues to OP Bank even without seeking such prayer from either of the parties to the complaint beyond the scope of CPA. In our view it is for the OPs to recover dues legally from court competent to recover definitely not from Consumer Commissions. As consumer commissions what we have to examine is limited and confined only to record finding on the alleged deficiency of service on the part of Ops and to grant relief befitting within the scope of the CPA.

9.  Learned counsel for respondent/OPs placed copy of notice dated 08.06.2022 issued to Mr.Ganapathirao S Munji, which was sent under registered A/D, informing him as on 08.06.2022, that he was due to the tune of Rs.13,70,136/- and on 14.07.2022 as per registered A/D, he was due at Rs.12,96,500/-. The postal covers for having been sent such notices to Mr.Ganapathirao S Munji and appellant herein had received the notices are placed and they are received in evidence. The Seizure Report and Inventory is also placed on record along with Statement of Loan Account as on 30.06.2022, he was due Rs.12,92,364/- and as on 21.03.2023, his loan account shown due an amount of   Rs.3,24,409/-. It   does not mean to say loan in question is already discharged but shows, some amount have been deposited to the loan account from time on time as it could be seen from the statement of account which they have placed during the course of enquiry.  In our view, considering the fact that the principal borrower is dead and his nominee/complainant had shown payment of some money from time on time OP to consider the case of the complainant with some sympathy to see that the dispute be resolved. It has come in the enquiry that she is a nominee and the Consumer Commission is nothing to do with their personal issues raised by Smt.Prabhavathi, W/o Ganapathirao @ Ganesh Munji in O.S.No.250/2022.

10. Mr.Ganapathirao V Munji as per Certificate of Death died on 12.03.2022 and after death of her husband as per Ex.C7 one Mr.Basavaraj S/o Veerabhadrappa Maradi and complainant have entered into a Mutual Agreement wherein found her husband during his life time had sold KA-25-MD-2493 in favour of Mr.Basavaraj V Maradi and after such sale she gives her consent.  In our view suffice to justify the finding recorded by the District Commission in para-19 of the impugned order.  In appeal memo itself appellant has stated complainant and her husband asked financial help from one Mr.Basavaraj V Maradi of Ujjanakoppa Taluk, Ramdurga, Belgaum District and also offered him the vehicle as security.  Mr.Basavaraj V Maradi gave Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.10.2021 by cash and they entered into an Agreement of Sale on 28.10.2021 to which OP bank is not a party and without consent of the bank, either Mr.Ganapathirao S Munji or complainant entered into an Agreement of Sale with Mr.Basavaraj V Maradi and as they have violated the terms and conditions of the Composite Hypothecation Agreement, OPs cannot be held, have rendered deficiency in services, for having seized the vehicle, which was rightly appreciated by the District Commission, however, instead of dismissing the complaint proceed to give  direction to the complainant to do certain obligations and giving direction also to OPs to do certain actions has to be held beyond the scope of CPA, as such impugned order does call for an interference of the commission.  Hence, we proceed to allow the appeal.  Consequently, set aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 passed in CC/154/2022 on the file of DCDRC, Dharwad and as a result dismissed CC/154/2022 with no order as to costs.

11. Amount in deposit if any is directed to be transferred to District Commission for needful.

12. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for their information.

        Lady Member                                  Judicial Member             

*GGH*