ICICI BANK Vs. J.HARI KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order of the Dist. Forum directing them to pay Rs. 25,836 together with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and costs.

(2.) THE case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Hero Honda motor cycle through Tata Finance Company for Rs. 48,000. As per the finance agreement he had to pay Rs. 8,000 towards initial payment and Rs. 1,615 for 25 months towards instalments. Accordingly he issued 25 post -dated cheques to the finance company. The finance company collected 12 instalments by presenting the cheques. Later he was unaware as to why the remaining cheques were not encashed. While so on 14.4.2005 the appellant bank agent came to him and informed that it has a tie up with Tata Finance Company and demanded payment of the balance amount. The tie up agreement was not known to him. In spite of it, he paid Rs. 6,456 towards four instalments and requested the agent to present the cheques issued by him every month for collection of future instalments. However, he did not present the said cheques. While so, on 16.9.2005 the agent of the bank took away the vehicle without intimating him. When he enquired, he gave acknowledgement for seizure of the vehicle. In spite of his requests that he would pay the remaining balance, the vehicle was not released. On that he issued lawyer notice on 7.10.2005 for which the bank did not give any reply. Since the seizure was illegal he filed the complaint claiming refund of the amount paid by him, or return the vehicle after receiving the balance amount, besides return the cheques issued by him and compensation and costs.

(3.) R 2 filed counter adopted by R1, resisting the case. While admitting the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant through Tata Finance Company and presentation of 12 cheques to the financier, however denied that the finance company did not present the cheques for the reasons not known to him. However, he admitted that an amount of Rs. 6,456 was paid by the complainant on 14.4.2005. He denied the issuance of cheques by the complainant for the balance of amount. However, he admitted the seizure of vehicle on 16.9.2005. He alleged that bank has taken over the Tata Finance Company in April, 2004 for which they have informed by way of letters to all the customers. On receipt of such letters the complainant has paid the instalments. The complainant has issued only 12 cheques as against 36 months as per the agreement. Five cheques that were issued by the complainant were bounced. The amount that was paid on 14.5.2005 was towards previous instalments including the bounced cheque charges. The complainant entered into an Hire Purchase Agreement willing to pay the instalments regularly and on failure to pay even a single instalment they were authorised to seize the vehicle. Since the complainant did not pay the instalments the vehicle was seized on 16.9.2005. The complainant did not make any effort to pay the amount. In spite of repeated requests by their agents he paid only Rs. 6,456 on 14.5.2005 for the amount covering the instalments from 7.11.2004 to 16.9.2005 together with bounced cheques charges. The complainant has suppressed the material facts. Since the complainant did not respond even after taking possession of the vehicle on 16.9.2005 they issued a notice on 30.9.2005. The complainant did not pay any amount. He filed the complaint to evade payment of balance of amount of Rs. 13,384. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.