D BHARATH KUMAR Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this consumer complaint, D. Bharath Kumar, complainant has stated that he was self -employed in the field of transporting goods in various parts of the country and he was proprietor of M/s. Universal Packers and Movers. He availed a loan of Rs. 5,80,000/ - from the OP, HDFC Bank for purchase of a Ashok Lelyland 'E' Comet heavy vehicle whose total price was Rs. 6,88,042/ -. The said loan of Rs. 5,80,000/ - was payable in 35 equated monthly instalments (hereinafter referred as EMIs) for which 35 post -dated cheques were given in the name of OP -2. The complainant spent a further amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - to build container on the chassis of the vehicle and got it registered as AP -10V -4090 with the endorsement of hypothecation in the name of OP, HDFC Bank. The complainant has stated that he had been regularly paying the EMIs to the Bank through cheques drawn upon ICICI Bank, Begumpet Branch. However, due to shift in the business premises of the complainant to another address, his bank also got changed to Union Bank of India. The complainant requested the OPs not to present the post -dated cheques for collection of the amounts to the previous bank but still, they presented the cheques for December 2005, January and February 2006 to the ICICI Bank and the said cheques got dishonored. It has been alleged that on 10.03.2006, the representatives of OP -3 which is an agent of OP -1 and 2, took away another vehicle No. AP -10U -9305 owned by the complainant which was financed by the Kotak Mahindra Bank and had nothing to do with the loan obtained from the OPs for the vehicle in question. The complainant lodged an FIR under section 382 IPC against the OPs alleging theft of the vehicle. The complainant also filed a Civil Suit against the OPs for damages which is stated to have been decreed in favour of the complainant. The OPs moved arbitration suit OS 771/2006 seeking directions against the complainant to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 5,78,000/ - and also to direct him to surrender the vehicle bearing registration No. AP -10V -4090. As stated in the complaint, the complainant contacted the OPs and requested them to withdraw the case OS 771/2006 and also handed -over cheques from the Union Bank of India to them in place of the cheques of the previous cheques. The payments of EMIs were made thereafter from time to time but the OPs again seized the vehicle on 15.02.2007. Thereafter, the arbitration proceedings were instituted against the complainant by the OPs, but the same were closed on 27.12.2008 because the OPs did not pursue the matter. The complainant has stated that he then sent DD No. 94846 issued by the Union Bank of India for Rs. 93,846/ - to the OPs as payment for the balance EMIs but the OPs refused to accept the balance amount and release the vehicle. Later on, there were proceedings in the Civil Court between the complainant and the OPs which were decreed in his favour on 24.01.2013. The execution proceedings were still pending EP No. 441/2014 dated 09.09.2014. The complainant has stated in the prayer clause that he should be duly compensated for loss of his earnings and mental agony due to the acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs against him.

(2.) THE complainant appeared in person to argue the matter and was heard. He reiterated the allegations levelled against the OPs and stated that he deserved to be compensated as per the prayer made in the complaint.

(3.) AN examination of the material attached with the complaint reveals that the complainant raised a loan of Rs. 5,80,000/ - from the OP, HDFC Bank to purchase a heavy vehicle AP -10V -4090 for carrying out his business of transportation of goods. In the first instance, when some post -dated cheques issued by the complainant got dishonored, the OPs wrongfully seized another vehicle belonging to the complainant, following which there were civil and criminal proceedings between the parties. Later on, the complainant made payments to the OPs for some more time, but the vehicle was again seized by the OPs on 15.02.2007. The material on record shows that since then, there has been litigation between the complainant and the OPs in various courts. A material document on record is an order passed by the court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in OS No. 454 of 2010, between the two parties. This civil suit was decided on 24.01.2013 and the OPs were directed to deliver the vehicle bearing No. AP -10V -4090 to the complainant in a road -worthy condition and the OPs were given liberty to withdraw a sum of Rs. 93,846/ - deposited by the complainant. In this civil suit, the OPs were proceeded against exparte. The complainant has stated that the execution proceedings were pending in the Civil Court for implementation of the said order. It is clear from the above that a civil court of competent jurisdiction was already seized of the issue in question and considering all relevant facts on record, an order had already been passed by the Civil Court on 24.01.2013. There does not seem to be any justification, therefore, for filing the present proceedings against the OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the matter has been already deliberated upon and decided by the civil court. It is true that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. However, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case when the Civil Court has already passed orders adjudicating upon the issue involved and providing relief to the complainant, we do not consider either justifiable or expedient to take a view in the matter based on the same facts and circumstances. Moreover, the proceedings before the Consumer Fora are summary in nature whereas in the present case, the civil court has already taken a view keeping in view all the facts on record. There does not seem to be any justifiable reason, therefore for filing the present consumer complaint and the same is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.