ABDUL KHADER Vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 20.1.2014, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to 'State Commission') in , dismissing the said complaint, has been challenged in this first appeal.

(2.) According to the complainant, he is a self-employed driver of all types of heavy vehicles. Chi 6.7.2012, he approached the OP - Bank for availing finance for purchasing the chasis of a truck TATA LPT 3118 C. The OP - Bank approved his proposal and issued a cheque of Rs. 20 lakh to M/s. Jaspher Industries, Hyderabad and the balance amount of Rs. 90,869 was paid by the complainant himself. It is stated that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3,71,247 towards erection of the body cabin over the chasis and also paid charges towards temporary registration, insurance policy, etc. The complainant stated that one executive of the OP, Mr. Ramana who negotiated loan with the Bank, left the service of the OP without handing over Form 20 to the complainant, which was necessary for the purpose of registration with the Transport Authority. The complainant could not ply the vehicle for want of permanent registration. On the other hand, some executives of the OP - Bank took away the truck on 10.10.2012, saying that they shall get the truck registered themselves. The complainant further stated that he had invested a total sum of Rs. 4,92,116 from his own savings and borrowings over the truck. Since the truck was not returned to him, he filed the consumer complaint in question with a prayer to refund the said amount of Rs. 4,92,116 back to him with interest, or in the alternative, to furnish Form 20 to him and deliver back the vehicle.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP - Bank saying that the vehicle was meant for commercial purpose, and hence the complaint was net maintainable. In so far as the documents for registration are concerned, the same were to be handed over by the dealer of the vehicle, and not the financier Bank. Since the complainant failed to remit the EMIs to them and failed to have the vehicle registered to create a charge hypothecation in favour of the bank, they repossessed the vehicle after serving several demand notices on the complainant. The Bank also sent him a pre-sale notice dated 3.12.2012. The bank further stated that they had already initiated steps to sell the vehicle in auction and the sale proceeds will be adjusted to the loan account of the complainant.