- (1.) THIS order will govern disposal of appeal nos. FA/12/48 and FA/12/49, preferred by the appellants herein, who were respectively OP and complainant, in the complaint case no. 114/2011 filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), whereby complaint of the complainant was partly allowed by order dated 05.01.2012, directing OP Bank to return the tractor & trolley to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/ - towards mental and physical harassment and also to pay cost of litigation Rs.1,000/ -. OP was also directed that since the tractor & trolley were kept in its possession for long time without getting order from a competent court, so it should bear further installments and interest as per document D 1(6). It was also directed that OP would adjust Rs.4,000/ - in the account of the complainant, being the amount of compensation as awarded in para 10(2) & 10(3) of the order. Having been aggrieved by the impugned order, complainant in his appeal has prayed for enhancement of the awarded amount while OP has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. In this order, the parties will be referred hereinafter as per their nomenclature as prevailed before the District Forum. Original of this order be retained in the file of appeal no.FA/12/48 and its copy be placed in anotherfile appeal no.FA/12/49.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case, necessary for disposal of the appeals are that the complainant is holder of account nos. A.T.C.01572065797 and K.C.C.0169006597 with the OP Bank and through these accounts he had deposited Rs.35,000/ - towards purchase of tractor and trolley and also got amount financed by OP Bank in the year 2004. OP Bank repossessed the tractor and trolley in February 2007 and kept it for auction with Talat Agency, Kharasia Naka Ambikapur. As per averment of the complainant, when he sought information from OP on 19.03.2007 about the tractor and trolley, he was informed that the tractor had not been sold in auction, and the same could be returned to him if outstanding dues Rs.1,30,000/ - were deposited, so in response he deposited Rs.50,000/ - on 19.03.2007, Rs.30,000/ - on 28.03.2007 and Rs.50,000/ - on 11.04.2007. so in all Rs.1,30,000/ - was deposited, but despite that tractor and trolley were not returned. A notice was sent by OP to him on 19.01.2011 demanding loan amount Rs.3,03,899/ - with interest within a week time else his land would be sold and amount of loan dues recovered. Complainant averred that OP had repossessed the tractor four years back and did not auction it, so he suffered financial loss of Rs.1,00,000/ - each year total Rs.4,00,000/ - as such the act of OP amounted to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice. A notice through advocate dated 19.04.2011 was sent to OP Bank by him. Complainant prayed before the District Forum seeking direction to OP for returning his tractor and trolley along with compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ - and alsoRs.1,00,000/ - towards mental agony.
(3.) OP bank in its reply, while denying other averments of the complainant, averred that the complainant was financed by it in the year 2004 for purchase of tractor and trolley and a hypothecation agreement was executed by him for the purpose. Complainant defaulted in repayment of loan installments thereby failed to repay the loan dues so notices were sent to him in writing and he was intimated verbally also but finding no response, the tractor and trolley were repossessed and kept with an authorized agency for auction. As per averment of OP when complainant contacted it in the year 2007 he was informed that the tractor was not auctioned and if he could deposit Rs.2,00,000/ - then the tractor and trolley would be returned to him but he could deposit Rs.1,30,000/ - only. A notice was also sent to the complainant on 19.01.2011 demanding him Rs.3,03,899/ - with interest within a week time failing which the amount would be recovered by sale of his land. OP also averred that the condition of tractor and trolley was so poor that nobody was willing to buy it in auction. OP also averred that the complainant had defaulted in repayment of loan in terms of agreement so he was responsible for his own conduct as such it had not committed any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice by repossessing the vehicle. OP prayed for dismissal of the complainant. Learned District Forum having perused the documents produced before it and heard arguments of parties allowed the complaint in part with the direction to return tractor and trolley to the complainant along with compensation as perthe impugned order.;