INDUSIND BANK LTD Vs. BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner, M/s. Indusind Bank has prayed for setting aside the order of Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 147 of 2008. In the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner/OP against the order of the District Forum, Dhanbad, holding it to be an appeal without merit.

(2.) Facts of the case on record of the Fora below are that the Complainant, Birendra Kumar Sinha had purchased a Tata truck with a loan from the RP/OP in 2006. The loan was required to be repaid in 48 EMIs of Rs. 27,500 each. In July, 2007 the vehicle was forcibly repossessed by the RP/ OP. When the Complainant/Respondent requested for its release, he was asked to pay the entire outstanding balance of the loan. The Complainant therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum. District Forum has held that by 10.7.2007, when the vehicle was repossessed by the RP/OP, the Complainant/Respondenthad already paid Rs. 1,23,000 and therefore, repossession for the remaining over dues of Rs. 43,495 was not proper and amounted to a deficiency in service on the part of the Bank/OP.

(3.) In the petition before us, the Revision Petitioner has repeatedly claimed that repossession was in exercise of its right under Clause 15.2 of the loan agreement. This appears to be an attempt to obfuscate the issue. The question is not of its right to repossess but of the manner in which it was done. The State Commission has made the following observations in this regard: