Judgment:
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member)
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.369/2009 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a businessman dealing with sale of cloth in Hyderabad and he purchased a motor cycle, BAJAJ CT 100, 2006 from Siddi Vinayaka Automobiles, Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad by availing loan from Centurion Bank of Punjab, Hyderabad Branch which was subsequently amalgamated with the HDFC Bank Ltd. i.e. the opposite party. The vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant under registration no.      AP9-BD-4981 and he taken delivery of the vehicle. The complainant before purchase of the vehicle, out of the loan amount sanctioned to him by the opp.party, paid the initial down payment in cash as required by the opp.party and his signatures were obtained on printed forms before the vehicle was delivered to him. As demanded by the opposite party, the complainant got the hypothecation entry recorded in the RC Book of the vehicle in favour of the opp.party. Before payment of the loan amount towards cost of the vehicle to the dealer, the complainant issued 28 advance cheques in favour of the opp.party i.e. each cheque for Rs.1,229/- towards EMIs for repayment of the loan amount by him and the opp.party has been realizing the amount of EMI every month through the cheques issued by the complainant. The complainant was not explained about the conditions of the grant of loan by the opposite party before obtaining his signature on the printed forms nor was he supplied with any copies of the same for his use and understanding of the terms of contract. The complainant made requests to the opp.party to furnish him the copies of contract papers regarding loan amount on which the opposite party obtained his signatures but the opposite party failed to furnish him the said copies. The complainant submits that out of 28 cheques, only 8 cheques were dishonoured and for the said cheques he arranged payment of amount in cash. The complainant requested the opposite party several times to furnish him the extract of loan account to verify about the status of the outstanding instalments of the loan. The complainant submits that the opp.party without issuing any prior notice had taken away his motor cycle on 20.1.2009 when it was parked at Sultan Bazar/Koti area of Hyderabad City. The complainant went to Badichowdi police station on 20.1.2009 for lodging the complaint and produced before them the Xerox copy of the R.C.Book which reveals about the hypothecation entry in favour of opposite party but the police refused to register the complaint and advised to approach opp.party or take civil action in the matter.
The opposite party through telegram informed the complainant that the vehicle was seized by them as he failed to pay the outstanding loan amount. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party and requested for furnishing the copy of the extract of his loan account for verification and also agreed to pay the due amount. But the opposite party failed to comply with his request and demanded for payment of Rs.12,943/- in lumpsum and threatened that in case of his failure to do so the vehicle would be sold away for recovery of the outstanding loan amount. The complainant submits that he is due only two instalments and he is ready to pay the same provided he is furnished with the loan extract account for verification. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.18.4.2009 to the opp.party calling upon him to furnish the extract of the loan account for verification along with the copies of the loan documents to enable him to arrange payment of the outstanding dues to the opp.party but the opposite party did not reply. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- for purchase of new Bajaj CT 100 motor cycle, to pay Rs.9 lakhs towards damages for mental agony and loss of business suffered, to pay hire charges at Rs.500/- per day w.e.f. 21.1.2009 towards transportation till the date of purchase of new motor cycle and to pay costs.
The opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and contend that the complainant having received notice from the opposite party approached the Dist Forum without verification of his loan account and the transactions made therein. As per the notice forwarded by the opposite party the complete statement of account of the said loan account showing all the transactions including due and outstanding, late payment charges, cheque bouncing charges, interest due on prepayment, pending instalments, prepayment charges, repossession charges etc. were mentioned. The complainant shall have to pay outstanding amount of Rs.12,943/- as on 29.1.2009. The authorities of opposite party Bank seized the vehicle in due compliance of the rules of RBI and once the vehicle is seized the defaulter has to deposit necessarily the total amount due and outstanding as per the agreement between the parties. The complainant executed agreement of Hypothecation loan a/c no.90474799 dt.28.2.2006 with the opp.party bank and pursuant to the same complainant was facilitated to purchase a two wheeler Bajaj CT 100 under hypothecation of the same in favour of opp.party and he agreed to pay EMIs as per the agreement at Rs.1,229/- p.m. from 10.4.2006 till 10.8.2008. The complainant became defaulter as per the agreement and as per the banking regulations the opposite parties have every right to seize the vehicle hypothecated and put the vehicle for public auction for recovering the amounts due and outstanding in the said account. The opposite party submits that 10 cheques were bounced in the said account and the opposite party issued notice to the complainant and the same was received by the complainant but he failed to pay the amounts due. The complainant agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement and that the bank has incurred substantial amounts towards cheque bounce charges and in view of the same the complainant shall have to pay due and outstanding amounts as per his loan account. The opp.party submits that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A10 and B1 to B5 and pleadings put forward partly allowed the complaint directing the opp.party to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and an amount of Rs.5000/- towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party preferred this appeal.
Respondent filed written arguments.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant availed loan from the opposite party for purchase of the Bajaj Motor Cycle for an amount of Rs.31000/- and entered into an agreement with the opposite party bank, as per which he has to pay Rs.1229/- per month till 10.8.2008 starting from 10.4.2006 i.e. total of 29 EMIs . Ex.A1 to A6 are the copies of the receipts towards payments of EMIs. It is the complainants case that because of some financial reasons few cheques remain dishonoured and the opposite party collected the cheque amount along with penalty charges of Rs.100/-. He submits that the opposite party obtained his signatures on the certain contract paper but did not furnish him the copies of the same. Eight cheques were dishonoured out of 28 cheques and the opposite party had seized his motor cycle on 20.1.2009 and informed the complainant officially about the seizure only on 22.1.2009 (0.1.2009 and informed the complainant officially about the seizure only on 22.1.2009 motor cycle on h him copiesof the same .  Ex.A7) and demanded payment of Rs.12,943/- .The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.18.4.2009 to the opposite party vide Ex.A9 to furnish the extract of the loan account for verification. It is the appellant/opposite partys case that the loan period ended on 11.8.2008 and Ex.B1 statement of account clearly shows that the complainant committed default in payment of monthly instalments and did not pay the cheque bounce charges, late payment and also two EMIs. We also observe from the record that Ex.B3 is the pre repossession intimation to the police station dt.21.1.2009. Vide Ex.B5 pre sale notice dt.31.1.2009 the opposite party only intimated to the complainant that there are dues of Rs.12,943/- and asked him to pay within 7 days but did not intimate him the date of sale i.e. the date of the auction thereby giving an opportunity to the complainant to participate in the auction. It is also pertinent to note that the opposite party did not specify anywhere in their affidavit or in their arguments about the date on which the auction was held and the amount for which the vehicle was sold. Taking into consideration that no proper opportunity was given to the respondent/complainant in participating in auction or in paying his amounts and the opposite party has also not specified the amount for which the vehicle was sold, we are of the considered view that the District Forum has rightly awarded Rs.30,000/- after duly taking into consideration that the complainant paid 27 out of 29 instalments .
In the result for the afore mentioned reasons this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.