Decided on February 11,2008

S. Kiran Kumar Appellant
Centurion Bank Of Punjab Limited Respondents


- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in C.D. No. 577 of 2006 on the file of District Forum -III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle by availing vehicle loan from the opposite party bank in August 2004 for an amount of Rs. 38,000 and paid the following EMI amounts. Date of Payment Total amount paid 8.10.2004 Rs. 1,360 9.11.2004 Rs. 1,360 9.12.2004 Rs. 1,360 8.1.2005 Rs. 1,360 9.2.2005 Rs. 1,360 9.3.2005 Rs. 1,360 21.4.2005 Rs. 1,360 20.5.2005 Rs. 1,360 30.6.2005 Rs. 1,360 25.7.2005 Rs. 1,360 11.8.2005 Rs. 1,360 26.9.2005 Rs. 1,360 26.10.2005 Rs. 1,360 28.11.2005 Rs. 1,360 5.12.2005 Rs. 1,360 27.1.2006 Rs. 1,360 Initial payment made to the vehicle at showroom Rs. 11,279 Total Rs. 33,739
(3.) ON 14.3.2006 he found that his two -wheeler missing from his office and he filed a theft case in Panjagutta Police Station and later came to know that his vehicle was seized by the bank because he did not pay two EMIs with penalty. Thereafter he brought this issue to the notice of Alternate Consumer Disputes Redressal Cell, Civil Supplies, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and the Cell also pointed the mistake of the opposite party in selling the vehicle without intimation to the complainant. The complainant submits that the vehicle was seized along with helmet which costs Rs. 850. Vexed with the attitude of the banker, he approached the District Forum seeking directions to opposite party to refund Rs. 33,739 paid on the vehicle together with compensation of Rs. 25,000, costs of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 850 towards helmet cost. Opposite party filed counter admitting that they have released the loan of Rs. 38,000 which was to be repaid in 36 EMI of Rs. 1,360 each. Opposite party contends that most of the cheques issued towards repayment were dishonoured and, therefore, they were constrained to cease the vehicle. They contended that the customer being satisfied executed the agreement and they have made several requests to the complainant of clearing the outstanding dues and the opposite party is the de jure owner of the vehicle, being the financier, they issued two letters dated 16.3.2006 and 12.4.2006 to the complainant calling upon him to pay the outstanding dues within 3 days failing which the seized vehicle would be sold to the third parties. After receiving the said letters the complainant neither replied nor repaid the amount and, therefore, opposite party was constrained to sell the vehicle to the third parties as per the terms of the agreement and, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.