Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/485

JEEWANLAL AHIRWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH. R.S. YADAV

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 485 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 21.02.2013 passed in C. C. No.162/2012 by District Forum, Vidisha)

 

1. JEEWAN LAL AHIRWAR,

    S/O LATE SHRI LAXMAN AHIRWAR,

   

2. BHAV SINGH,

    S/O LATE SHRI LAXMAN AHIRWAR,

 

BOTH R/O VILLAGE-BERKHEDI QUSBA,

TEHSIL & DISTRICT-VIDISHA (M.P.)                                                                                             ….       APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA,

CHITWAN, KHARI PHATAK ROAD,

VIDISHA (M.P.)                                                                                                                               ….       RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :    PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :    MEMBER

        

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri R. S. Yadav, learned counsel for appellant.

Shri H. R. Mutreja, learned counsel for respondent.

 

                                                     O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 11.03. 2019)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant is against the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vidisha (For short the ‘Forum’) in C.C.No. 162/2012, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                     Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of a tractor of Swaraj Company, Model-2002, regarding which he had obtained loan from the opposite party bank for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.  The complainant alleged that there was default in payment of few instalments.  The opposite party on account of the above, forcefully seized the tractor from his possession.  Furthermore, the aforesaid tractor was sold, in order to recover dues without any prior notice to the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party, the complainant approached the Forum, seeking relief.

3.                     The opposite party in their written statement before the Forum made a submission that the loan availed by the complainant was to be repaid in 17 Equal Monthly Instalments. The complainant was habitual defaulter. He was sent reminders from time to time, regarding repayment of loan.  Consequently, the tractor was taken from the

-2-

complainant’s possession and was sold in order to recover dues.  The complainant was duly informed in the above regard. The complainant was given an opportunity for closure of his loan account, under the scheme provided by the bank, regarding which he was noticed on 23.10.2010.  The complainant again ignored the aforesaid notice and the amount towards loan is still due to be paid by him.

4.                     Heard. Perused the record.

5.                     Learned counsel for complainant/appellant argued that the pre-sale notice dated 27.07.2010 issued by the bank was received by the complainant on 22.08.2010 whereas the opposite party had sold the tractor before that.  The opposite party/respondent has been deficient in service that they did not inform the complainant/appellant before carrying out the sale proceeds of the tractor.  He further argued that address of the complainant/appellant, on the notice was mentioned incorrectly and therefore it was not timely delivered to him.  The complainant/appellant ought to have been given opportunity regarding repayment of loan by the opposite party/respondent, before selling the aforesaid tractor.

6.                     Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent argued that notices on various occasions were issued to the complainant/appellant before and after sending a pre-sale notice dated 27.07.2010.  The complainant availed loan from the opposite party in the year 2002.  When the complainant could not repay the loan instalments, the opposite party bank was left with no option, but to sell the tractor in order to recover dues.

7.                     Careful perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the complainant/appellant Jeewanlal Ahirwar had obtained loan from the opposite party bank in the year 2002.  The opposite party/respondent has placed on record the account statement of complainant’s/appellant’s loan account in order to substantiate that there was default in repayment of instalments on part of the complainant/appellant.  Due to the aforesaid, the opposite party repossessed the said tractor as per terms and conditions agreed into, between the parties.  The complainant/appellant was also informed vide pre-sale notice dated 27.07.2010 issued by the opposite party and was given an opportunity to repay the loan amount along with interest, before carrying out the sale proceeds.  A newspaper publication is there on record, mentioning the date of auction as 11.08.2010.  The allegation of the complainant that pre-sale notice was not received by him in time is not supported by

-3-

any evidence. Nor do we find any disparity in the address of the complainant/appellant.  The opposite party/respondent bank cannot be held liable on this account.

8.                     In this view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of a considered view that since the complainant/appellant, was defaulter and dues were pending on him owing to non-payment of instalments on his part, the opposite party/respondent cannot be held deficient in service in repossessing his tractor, as per norms and subsequently selling it in order to recover the dues.

9.                     In wake of the above discussion, we hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.  This appeal, being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

           (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)                  (DR. MONIKA MALIK)

                           PRESIDENT                                                    MEMBER