INDUSIND BANK Vs. M. SWAROOPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.862/2008 on the file of District Forum-1, Hyderabad, opposite party no.1 filed this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant availed the finance facility from the opposite parties for purchasing a TVS Scooty. The opposite parties financed a sum of Rs.31,000/- and have imposed a sum of Rs.4,028/- towards finance charges, mentioning the agreement value at Rs.35,028/-. The opposite party collected the post dated cheques for the monthly instalments at Rs.2,919/- per month. Though the opp.parties have collected the amount towards the registration charges in the finance amount itself they have not arranged for the permanent registration. The vehicle was delivered on 12.7.2007 and though the complainant paid 8 instalments out of 12 instlaments the vehicle was not registered by the opp.parties. The complainant requested the opp.parties to get the permanent registration and receive the amount due. But the opposite parties deputed their representative by name Mr.Naveen for seizure of the vehicle who had seized the vehicle on 29.10.2008 forcibly without giving prior notice. Thereafter the complainant?s husband approached the Bank and requested for receipt of over due amount and release of the vehicle. But the opposite parties did not respond for the said request and sold away the vehicle for the lesser amount to the parties known to them. At the time of seizing the vehicle the complainant had her valet in the dicky of the vehicle and states that there is a sum of Rs.1200/- in the said valet. Opposite parties high handedly seized the vehicle without prior notice and ultimately failed to return the vehicle by receiving the over due amount inspite of several requests and representations which not only amounts to deficiency in service but also amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint seeking direction to opposite party no.1 to return the TVS Scooty bike bearing registration No.AP28 TR 7361 from the premises of the opp.party no.2 forthwith to the complainant, to return a sum of Rs.1200/- kept in the valet which is in the dicky of the seized vehicle to the complainant immediately, to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony, to immediately register the vehicle permanently and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(3.) Opposite party no.1 filed counter stating that there is no duty cast upon them to get registration of the vehicle much less permanent registration of the vehicle in favor of the complainant with RTA and it is the duty of the complainant to get registration for the vehicle in her favour duly endorsing hypothecation of the vehicle in the name of this opp.party. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of instalments. The complainant issued 12 post dated cheques but all the cheques were dishonored. As on the date of the seizure of the vehicle 11 cheques were dishonoured. Later on the last cheque was also dishonoured. The complainant paid 8 instalments subsequent to the dishonour of the respective cheques, but irregular. On 22.7.2008 itself a notice was issued by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant to pay the amount due under the dishonoured cheque dt.21.6.2008 for Rs.2,219/- and the said notice returned unserved with postal endorsement "not claimed". As such the opposite party no.1 filed C.C.No.744/2008 on the file of First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad and the same is still pending. Opp.party no.1 also issued one more notice to the complainant on 18.10.2008 demanding to pay overdue amount of Rs.8,833/- within seven days or to surrender the vehicle. As such it is false and incorrect to state that no notice was issued to the complainant before the seizure of the vehicle. A notice was also issued after seizing of the vehicle for settlement. The relationship between the complainant and opposite party no.1 is that of debtor and creditor and hence the complainant has to approach the Civil Court for breach of the terms of the loan agreement if any. Opp.party submits that as per the interim orders of the Hon'ble Forum made in I.A.No.644/08 dt.30.10.2008 the vehicle was released to the complainant on 7.11.2008 by taking acknowledgement and they have withdrawn the deposited amount of Rs.8,757/- from the Forum and the complainant is still due to pay the last instalment amount of Rs.2,919/- in addition to 12 cheque bounce charges of Rs.3,360/- @ Rs.280/- per each cheque and additional finance charges for delayed payment of each instalment and he is also liable to pay godown charges. The opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.