STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. H.S.SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has vehemently argued that a blatant order has been passed by the Fora below. This is an yet another case of high handedness, illegality and using of musclemen by the Standard Chartered Bank (in short the ˜SCB) or its agents, which has a very good reputation in the Corporate World by forgetting the existing laws of the land and civil behaviour in taking forcible repossession of the vehicle from an unarmed consumer who happens to default in the payment of installment. In this case, admittedly the respondent -complaint had taken a vehicle after taking loan from the SCB and at the time of taking the loan he made an advance payment of Rs.35,000. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the written version, which is quoted by the District Forum that the opposite party was forced to take the possession of the vehicle on consonance to the terms and agreement and they were forced to sell the vehicle to recover the outstanding amount. He submitted two points, according to him the District Forum held that though the complainant had filed bills relating to accessories it cannot be concluded that whether the bills pertaining to the expenses of the car in question, whether this is the conclusion of the District Forum of whether it is the averment made by the opposite party is not clear - The District Forum has awarded Rs.35,000 to be paid by the petitioner. Secondly, the State Commission while concurring the judgment gave two months time to comply with its order. In fact it amounts to stay of its own order apart from the stay granted in the beginning, but it amounts to stay of the District Forums order. The State Commission ordered two months beyond of that and beyond of that date and hapless consumer was to be paid a reasonable interest of 9% per annum. As Rs.35,000 was paid in advance by the complainant was not refunded by the petitioner Bank and hence, the first limb of the argument does not hold water and as regards to the instalments the petitioner submits that till date, the State Commissions order, the petitioner has not complied with the order of the Fora below and compensated the consumer, hence, second limb of the argument also fails. In this connection, we are inspired by the celebrated judgment of this Commission in Citi Corp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi1, wherein the Commission has analyzed the judgment and gave a thorough conclusion with the hope that the money lenders, Banks, finance companies utilize their musclemen to recover money due to them cannot be permitted in a civil society and it has been held as a gross deficiency in service. The Apex Court in a landmark : Judgment ICICI Bank v. Prakash Kaur and Ors.2 where it has held as under: Now the bank is the aggressor and the public is the victim. The first step to recover of the money due is through the so -called recovery/collection agents. A very dignified terms used for paid recovery agents who are individual and independent contractors hired by the banks both to trace the defaulters and to physically, mentally and emotionally torture and force them into submitting their dues. A mans self -respect, stature in society are all immaterial to the agent who is only primed at recovery. This is the modernized version of Shylocks pound of flesh. No explanation is given regarding the interest charge and the bank takes cover under the guise of the holder of the card or loan having signed the agreement whose fine print is never read or explained to the owner.

(2.) THE above cited judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand. Hence, there is no merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed. However, the petitioner .shall pay Rs.5,000 as cost to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he will comply with the order of the lower Fora from two months from the date of State Commissions order till the date of payment. Revision dismissed with cost Rs. 5,000.