PRITPAL SINGH Vs. CITI BANK N A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant purchased a Delux Maruti Car with AC bearing No. CHK-2200. It was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. A sum of Rs. 90,000/- was obtained as a loan from the respondent-bank on 25.2.92, it was repayable in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 3681/- each. It has been alleged that on 19/20.11.92 some officials of the respondent-bank collected the Motor Car on the pretext as if they were to inspect this vehicle but it has not been returned to him. It has been alleged that no instalment was outstanding against him because he had paid Rs. 33,129/- till November 92. The relief claimed by the complainant is reproduced as under :

(2.) The respondent-bank filed a reply wherein it has been averred that the motor car was an old one of 1987 model. It was insured only for Rs. 1,20,000/-. The loan of Rs. 90,000/- was disbursed to the complainant on 12.2.92 and according to agreement even if there was a default of single monthly instalment of Rs. 3,681/- it was a breach of the agreement. It has, further been averred that the complainant's wife also obtained a separate loan of Rs. 82,000/- from the respondent vide Auto Loan A/c Number U5-304-37488 and it was payable by monthly instalment of Rs. 3,354 /- each. It was denied that a sum of Rs. 35,105 /- was received by the respondent from the complainant in respect of the loan obtained by the complainant.

(3.) We have perused the letter of the complainant dated 20.1.93 and also the statement of the Citi Bank issued by its Manager. This shows that after the loan was granted on 12.2.92, the complainant did not make payment of any instalment till September 92. The instalments for March, April and May 1992 were paid on 27.10.92. It was obviously a case of continuous defaults. The complainant availed of the vehicle from February 92 till 19/20.11.92. The learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to Surinder Mohan Arora v. Citi Bank Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 1994 (1) C-Cases 143, where a motor car 118 NE was valued at Rs. 2,15,357.39 and out of that a sum of Rs. 1,86,249/- was made available by the Citi Bank. In that case the motor car was forcibly seized from the residential premises of the complainant and it was disliked by the Commission. The bank was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,17,300/- together with interest. The facts of the case now in hand are partly distinguishable inasmuch as in the Delhi case only two instalments were outstanding whereas in the present case three instalments were paid. The motor car was also an old one. When we examined an Officer of the respondent Shri Rajesh Sharma, he told that the vehicle was lying in their godown for the last four years and it was not in a serviceable condition and it could not be brought to Chandigarh. Since the respondent did not serve any notice on the complainant, there was deficiency on account of forcible/trickful removal of the motor car from possession of the complainant.