FIRST APPEAL NO.247 OF 2007 Date of filing : 28/02/2007

@ MISC. APPL. NO.594 OF 2007 Date of order : 10/08/2009



Nashik Merchants Co-op Bank Ltd.,

Nashik (Scheduled Bank) through

Chairman, Dhanvardhini Branch,

Tilak Path, Nashik. ….. Appellant/ Original Opponent


Shri Karbhari Kalu Kotare

Resident of Kaadak Sukene,

Taluka Dindori,

District Nashik ….. Respondent/ Original Complainant

Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Advocate, Tejas Dande for the Appellant.

Advocate, Ms.Ujwala Pandit for the Respondent.

- : ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 22/01/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No.89/2006, Karbhari Kalu Kotare V/s. Nashik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd., by Nashik Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (“Forum below” in short).

2. Respondent/Original Complainant had taken a loan from Appellant/Original Opposite Party Bank (herein referred as ‘Bank’) and purchased a tempo trax bearing No. MH-15-K-6072. Subsequently, since the respondent became defaulter, action was initiated by the bank under Co-Operative Societies Act and after obtaining recovery certificate under section 101 of the said Act, seized the vehicle, which was, subsequently auctioned. Consumer Complaint was filed by the respondent alleging that it was a high handed act on the part of the bank to seize the tempo trax vehicle in question and thus, claimed the relief. Forum below decreed the complaint directing the bank to pay Rs.73,000/- as compensation to the respondent along with Rs.50,000/- punitive damages and Rs.3,000/- as cost. Feeling aggrieved thereby the bank preferred this appeal.

3. Heard Advocate, Tejas Dande for the appellant and Advocate, Ms. Ujwala Pandit. for the respondent. Perused the record.

4. In the instant case as per loan documents on record, the vehicle in question could have been very well seized by the bank in case respondent became defaulter. It is tried to be argued that respondent was not defaulter and even the bank issued no dues certificate to the respondent. This is not a true factual statement. After taking proceedings as per the Co-Operative Societies Act against the respondent by the bank to recover its dues and after obtaining the recovery certificate, respondent’s loan account was got transferred to the main branch. As such loan issuing branch i.e.Dhanawardhani branch through mistake issued the no dues certificate to the respondent. The fact was immediately brought to the notice of the respondent, once the bank realized the mistake. Under the circumstances, claim of the respondent that he was not a defaulter and still the bank had taken action of seizure of vehicle is devoid of any substance. It may be pointed out that the bank had taken statutory proceedings under the Co-operative Societies Act, obtained the recovery certificate and then in execution thereof seized the vehicle. Therefore, the seizure or attachment of vehicle and subsequent auction thereof was as per the statutory provisions under the Co-operative Societies Act. If, respondent had any objection, he could have very well raise the same before the authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act, under the recovery proceeding. The action of the bank, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and no consumer complaint would lie. Forum below erred in not considering these aspects and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Impugned order, therefore, cannot be supported in the eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.


1. Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

2. Impugned order/award dated 22/01/2007 is set aside and in turn Consumer Complaint NO.89/2007 stands dismissed.

3. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

4. Misc. Application NO.594 of 2007 stands disposed of.

5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

(S. P. Lale) (S. R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member