KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. Vs. BALDEV SINGHS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. against the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.841/2010.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is the owner of Swaraj 735 tractor bearing No.HR02N-7963 which was financed by the OP/petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,18,000.00. The complainant had paid Rs. 1,00,000.00 to the seller directly. In this way, the total value of the vehicle was Rs. 3,18,000.00. The loan amount was to be returned in 35 monthly installments of Rs. 7,525.00 each. It is the case of the complainant that he was regularly paying the due installments as per the agreement executed between the parties, but complainant could not repay one next installment on which the OP forcibly repossessed the tractor. The complainant had received a letter in the second week of Oct., 2006 wherein the OP claimed Rs. 2,29,856.47 from the complainant including account of repossession charges and legal charges. This was totally false and wrong. Thus alleging it a case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum and prayed for directing the OP to produce the tractor in Court and the same be handed over to the complainant and complaint be accepted with costs.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP and the written statement was filed stating that after the seiser of the vehicle, the petitioner had sent a notice/letter dated 19.9.2006 through Regd. Post to the complainant asking to deposit the amount of R.2,29,856.47 within 5 days, failing which the tractor will be sold, but even then the complainant has failed to deposit the amount and he did not approach the petitioner and therefore, after waiting sufficiently, the vehicle was sold to Javinder Singh, vide agreement dated 29th Sept., 2006 for Rs. 2,27,000.00. Therefore now the complainant cannot claim anything over the hypothecated vehicle and the complaint is liable tube dismissed with heavy costs.