NATARAJAN BOHIDAR Vs. CITIBANK N.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Natarajan Bohidar , the Complainant obtained a loan in the sum of Rs.2,93,025/- from City Bank, the Opposite Party, to purchase a car, in the year 2000. The loan was re-payable in 59 EMIs of Rs.7,089/- each, commencing from Dec.1, 2001 to Oct. 2005. The complainant made regular EMI payments in the sum of Rs. 7,089/- per month, till September, 2004 by ECS mode, through his Savings Bank account (S/B Ac) at ABN AMRO Bank, New Delhi. Thereafter, from October-November, 2004, the complainant preferred for the repayment of the installments, by cheques. He revoked the ECS mandate from ABN AMRO Bank and intimated the OP that it should not make further demands of ECS transfer on its banker to avoid duplication of payments. Nine cheques were given by the complainant to the opposite party, at the time of signing the Loan Agreement. The OP did not use the cheques, but again, made ECS demand , which was not honoured by the ABN AMRO Bank. Thereafter, the OP issued him a notice for default in the agreed terms. Hence, the Complainant paid the amount by cheque for 4 instalments which was accepted by OP. Out of 59 instalments, only 5 remained to be paid. On 15.06.2005, when the Complainant was on his way, 4-5 persons, forcibly took the car from his possession. The complainant informed the matter to the police. The OP sold the car, without a pre-sale notice and after crediting the proceeds in his account, raised an outstanding demand of Rs.5,000/-. It is alleged that OP sent a pre-sale notice, the next day of re-possession i.e. on 16.06.2005 and also a notice was sent to clear the outstanding dues, within 7 days. The OP actually sold the car for Rs.50,000/- and after crediting the proceeds in his account, raised an outstanding demand of Rs.5,000/- .

(2.) The Complainant filed a complaint, alleging deficiency of service, in repossessing of car when only 4-5 instalments, out of 59, remained unpaid, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'State Commission') and claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The State Commission while observing that the claim was exaggerated just to make it come within the purview of the jurisdiction of the State Commission, remanded the complaint back to the District Forum to treat the claim as for Rs.20,00,000/-

(3.) The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as damages for loss and harassment caused to him and also awarded Rs.25, 000/- towards litigation charges.