Complaint filed on:15-11-2023
Disposed on:20-05-2024
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2024
//:PRESENT://
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 161/2023
Sri. Ranganath
S/o Lakshmappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at Kallahalli Village,
Ragalhalli Post, Hulikunte Hobli,
Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.
……….Complainant
(By Sri. Henjerappa., Advocate)
V/s
1. The Branch Manager,
Axis bank, Main branch,
Opp: Siddaganga Hospital,
B.H.Road, Tumkuru.
2. Sri. Ravikumar,
Authorized Employee,
Vehicle loan department,
Axis bank, Main branch,
Opp: Siddaganga Hospital,
B.H.Road, Tumkuru.
………..Opposite Party/s
(OP1 – By Smt. Meenakumari.T.E, Adv)
(OP2 absent)
//:O R D E R://
BY SRI. KUMARA .N – MEMBER
This complaint filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Parties to furnish the necessary documents of signed form No.35, hypothecation cancellation request letter, NOC certificate, addressing to RTO Tumakuru pertaining to Power Track Tractor bearing its Reg.No.KA-06-TD-7340 Chassis No.T053526313KK and engine No.E3591620 and further prayed to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and mental agony and deficiency of service on part of the OP to the complainant.
2. In this case, the Opposite Parties are the Branch Manager, Axis bank, Main branch, Opp: Siddaganga Hospital, B.H.Road, Tumkuru, the Opposite Party No.2 is Sir. Ravikumar, Authorized Employee, Vehicle loan department, Axis bank, Main branch, Opposite: Siddaganga Hospital, B.H.Road, Tumkuru (Hereinafter called as OP No.1 and 2 respectfully).
3. Its, the case of the complaint, that the complainant, approached the OP No.1 and 2, to avail the loan to purchase of Power Track Tractor for agriculture use. The OP No.1 collected Rs.5,661/- and Rs.9,696/- towards processing charges and vehicle insurance, respectfully. Accordingly, the OP No.1 on 16.03.2021 sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.4,64,339/- to the complainant. The complainant has to pay installments of loan amount started from 05.08.2021 to 05.02.2022 and the installment fixed for sum of Rs.83,474/- and the lost installment for a sum of Rs.77,264/-.
4. Its submitted that OP No.1 and OP No.2 aware that the complainant wife was suffering from cancer decease and the complainant due to his personal family problem, approached the OP No.1 and 2 and orally requested for grant one time settlement scheme and OP No.1 and 2 after the discussion advised the complainant to pay Rs.3,70,000/- as a single payment towards settlement of his Tractor loan. As advised by the OP No.1 and 2, the complainant on 30.12.2021 paid Rs.3,70,000/- towards final settlement of the Tractor loan account No.LNR000905895206 and OP No.1 accepted the paid amount and complainant acknowledged & advised complainant to come after 45 days to collect Form No.35 and NOC. The complainant on 05.03.2022 received signed Form no.35 from the OP No.1 and 2 with affixed bank authorized seal regarding closer of Tractor loan.
5. It is further submitted that, due to family problems, after obtained the Form No.35, the complainant decided to sell his tractor to Sri.Somashekara.B for Rs.4,85,000/- and accordingly said amount paid by Sri.Somashekara.B to the complainant. The complainant along with Sri.Somashekara.B approached the RTO officials for the transfer of RC and other documents of the tractor & after the verification, RTO officials advised the complainant and Sri.Somashekara.B, that the OP No.1 and 2 need to acknowledged the Form No.35, as a fresh, which was produced before by the OP No1, to get the fresh signature as endorsement on the Form No 35, the complainant and Sri.Somashekara.B approached the OP No.1 and 2, but the OP No.1 said that Tractor loan amount not cleared and still the complainant need to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the OP No.1 & only after clearing the balance loan amount, the NOC and Form No.35 will be issued as a fresh. The complainant shocked and explained the matter related to the settlement amount paid on 30.12.2021, but the OP No.1 denied. The complainant issued legal notice dated 06.01.2023 in spite of it, the OP No.1 not responded. Hence, this complaint.
6. After the complaint registered, the Commission issued notices to OP No.1 and 2 and OP No.1 filed its version and notice issued to OP No.2 returned with postal shara “No such persons” and the complainant taken substitute services by way of paper publication in Kannada daily “Hosa Digantha” News paper in spite of it, the OP No.2 not appeared and remained called out absent. The OP No.1 filed version by admitting the fact that the complainant being a customer of the OP No.1 sanctioned loan on 24.02.2021 for Rs.4,79,696/- towards purchase of Power Track Tractor and complainant executed loan agreement vide No.LNR000905895206 and denied the rest of averments of the complaint in the complainant. The OP No.1 in its version in para No.7 and 8 admitted the fact that the OP No.2, i.e. Mr.Ravikumar, who was working as an employee in the private firm & who is the vendor of the OP No.1, working in loan department and during the course of his employment, the OP No.2 recovered installments amount from the customer, particularly from the complainant and utilized the said amount for his personal aims and interest, instead of depositing the said amount to the respective loan account maintained at the OP No 1 and immediately after the such event noticed, the OP No.1 had filed complaint against OP No.2, before the station House Officer, New Extension police station, Tilak Park Circle, Tumkur. The OP NO 1 further submitted that, another Mr.Vedanth Mangali who had working as collection manager with the OP No.1, who collected with Rs.1,61,826/- from the complainant and other customers & the OP No.1 came to know that Mr.Vedanth Mangali misappropriated the said amount instead of deposited in the complainant loan account maintained at OP No 1, as a result the OP No 1, filed complaint against Mr. Vedanth Mangali before the Police Station Tumkur. The OP No.1 further submitted that, the FIR has been registered by the New Extension Police Station, Tumkur, under Crime No.104/2022 and same has been submitted before the Hon’ble PRL. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, and case, still not settled. Hence, OP No.1 prayed to dismisses the complaint and further, submitted that the complainant still liable to pay tractor loan balance amount of Rs.2,12,000/- to the OP No 1 and after paying the said amount NOC and Form No.35 will be issued to the complainant. By considering the above facts the OP No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. The complainant & OP No 1 counsels filed their affidavit evidences & complainant filed some documents i.e. Ex C1 to Ex C15 & OP filed documents which were marked as Ex R1 to Ex R6. We have heard the arguments of complainant’s and OPs’ counsel. Counsel for OP Nos. 2 & 3 also files written arguments.
8. The points that would arise for determination are as under;
- Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?
- Our findings aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: In the partly affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order.
//:REASONS://
Point Nos. (1) and (2):-
10. The counsel for complainant argued that the OP No 1 & OP No 2, aware that the complainant wife died due to cancer and when the complainant approached the OP No 1 & OP No 2, after the discussion, OP No 1 & Op No 2, informed the complainant to pay Rs.3,70,000/- in a single payment, towards settlement of his Tractor loan. As advised by the OP No.1 and 2 the complainant on 30.12.2021 paid Rs.3,70,000/- towards final settlement of the Tractor loan account No.LNR000905895206 and OP No.1 accepted the paid amount and complainant acknowledged & after 45 days issued Form No.35 and NOC. The complainant due to his personal problems, after obtained the Form No 35 from the OP No 1,intend to sell his tractor to Sri.Somashekara.B for Rs.4,85,000/- and said amount paid by Sri.Somashekara.B to the complainant. The complainant along with Sri.Somashekara.B approached the RTO officials for the RC transfer and after the verification RTO officials advised the complainant and Sri.Somashekara.B, that the OP No.1 need to acknowledged the Form No.35 produced earlier, accordingly the complainant & Sri.Somashekara.B approached the OP No.1 and 2, with request to acknowledge the Form No.35 issued earlier, but the OP No.1 said that Tractor loan amount not cleared and still the complainant need to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the OP No.1 only after clearing the balance loan amount, the NOC and Form No.35 will be issued. The OP No 1 officials submitted that, the OP No 2, i.e. Mr.Ravikumar and Mr. Vedanth Mangali collection Manager who miss utilized the loan installments amount collected from the complainant, instead of deposited with OP No 1, the OP No 1 lodged police complainant against them and the Form No 35 issued earlier is not genuine, accordingly the complainant need to pay the balance loan amount to get the Form No 35 and NOC from the OP No 1. The complainant counsel further submitted that, at the time of sanctioned the tractor loan, same OP No 1 and OP No 2 were present, and same were present at the time of one time settlement loan amount and the complainant not responsible for the wrong conduct of OP No 1 staff or officials and prayed this commission allow the complainant and award compensation by considering the master servant relationship of vicarious liability, the Hence, the complainant prays to allow the complaint. The complainant produced some documents, i.e. Ex C1/copy of the paper publication of OP No 2 notice , Ex C2/Original Tractor loan agreement, Ex C3/copy of the loan sanctioned details, Ex C4/copy of the Statement of account, Ex C5/original deposit slip of Rs 370000.00 paid to the OP No1, Ex C6/Form No 35 issued by the OP No 1, Ex C7/ copy of the vehicle certificate of registration, Ex C8/ copy of the Vehicle insurance, Ex C9/copy of the bonafide certificate, Ex C10/copy of the legal notice dated 06-01-2023, Ex C11 to C 13/postal receipts & acknowledgement, Ex C14/ OP No 2 legal notice returned & Ex C15/copy of the complainant wife treatment prescription.
11. The counsel for OP No 1 argued that the OP No 2, i.e. Mr.Ravikumar, who working with OP No 1 as vendor and during the course of his employment the OP No.1, recovered installment amount from the customer, particularly from the complainant and utilized the said amount for his personal aims and interest, instead of depositing the said amount to the respective loan account maintained at the OP No 1 and another Mr. Vedanth Mangali who working as collection Manager who miss utilized the loan installments amount collected from the complainant, instead of deposited with OP No 1. The OP No 1 lodged police complainant against them in the jurisdiction police station and the case is pending before the Hon’ble PRL. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, hence prayed to dismiss the complaint and produced documents, Ex R1, copy of the special power of attorney, Ex R2, copy of the filled loan application form with agreement, Ex R3, copy of the statement of account, Ex R4 copy of the FIR, Ex R5, copy of the police complaint, Ex R6, copy of the case status in the District court Tumkur.
12. It’s clear from the above discussions, that the complainant being a customer of the OP No 1, sanctioned the loan on 24.02.2021 for Rs.4,79,696/- towards purchase of Power Track Tractor and complainant executed loan agreement vide No.LNR000905895206 and the complainant purchased the tractor Power Track Tractor bearing its Reg.No.KA-06-TD-7340 Chassis No.T053526313KK and engine No.E3591620 (Ex C7) and after few months due to personal problem i.e. death of the complainant wife due to cancer (Ex C15), the complainant wants to clear the said tractor loan, accordingly the complainant approached the OP No 1 and the OP No 2, after the discussion the OPs (OP No 1 & OP No2), offered one time settlement of Rs.3,70,000/- to be paid in single payment by the complainant & in turn the complainant on 30.12.2021 paid Rs.3,70,000/- towards final settlement of the Tractor loan account No.LNR000905895206 and the OPs (OP No 1 & OP No2) received the said amount & acknowledged, later issued Form No 35 to the complainant. The allegation of the OP No 1, that the Mr.Ravikumar, who was working with OP No 1 as vendor and another Mr. Vedanth Mangali who was working as collection Manager, during the course of their employment with the OP No.1, they recovered installment amount from the customers, particularly from the complainant and utilized the said amount for his personal aims and interest, instead of depositing the said amount in the respective loan account maintained at the OP No 1, on contrary, the documents (Ex C4 , Ex R3 & Ex C5) produced by the complainant, proves that, complainant on 30.12.2021 paid Rs.3,70,000/- to the OP No 1 loan account, towards final settlement of the Tractor loan account No.LNR000905895206, which was received by the OP No 1, but the OP No 1, either in the version or evidence not stated the Rs 370000.00 collected from the complainant and which is reflected in the statement of account (Ex C4), which leads to unfair trade practice of the OP No 1. The installments amount collected by the staff of the OP No 1, from the complainant is an admitted fact, but the wrong acts done by the OP No 1, staff, the complainant is not at all responsible. The OP No 1 & OP No 2 issued Form No 35 (Ex C6) after collected the loan due amount towards settlement, Form No 35 is a Notice of Termination of an Agreement of Hire Purchase/Lease/Hypothecation. In the above discussion, this Commission relied on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment, of the bench comprising of Justice S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar in the case, of Leelawati Devi And Anr. Vs. District Cooperative bank Ltd, while hearing an appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, NCDRC, opinioned that BANK VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES, accordingly, in this case, the op no.2 being the op No.1 employee / vender performed the delegated duty on behalf of op No.1 and the complainant is not responsible for the conduct of the op No.2, and we come to the conclusion that the, deficiency of service on the part of OP No 1 & compelled the complainant to approach this commission, hence the complainant liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
//:ORDER://
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. The OP No 1 is directed to issue Form No 35, hypothecation cancellation request letter to RTO and NOC in favor of the complainant with respect to the Power Track Tractor bearing its Reg.No.KA-06-TD-7340 Chassis No.T053526313KK and engine No.E3591620 & Tractor loan account No.LNR000905895206. It is further ordered that the OP No 1 is to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. The OP No 1 is further directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, otherwise, it carries fine of 150/- per day till realization.
