Khairunnissa Begum vs BRANCH MANAGER (FINANACE), CITY BANK N.A.

THIS complaint was presented before this Commission on 5.12.1992 under Section 17(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction to the opposite party i.e. Branch Manager (Finance), Citi Bank N.A., 766 Anna Salai, Shakti Towers, Madras to pay damages of Rs. 1,70,000/- for the mental agony and tension caused to the complainant due to arbitrary acts, harassment, cheating and breach of trust of the opposite party.

THE case of the complainant as revealed by the allegations made in the complaint are that she borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,335/-on 15.11.1990 from the opposite party for the purpose of purchasing a Kinetic Honda Scooter, that the said amount is repayable in 36 instalments of Rs. 549/- each, that the complainant paid the instalment amounts from May, 1991 to March, 1992, that on 11.3.1992 the officers of M/s. Nagarjuna Finances at Punjagutta said to be the agents of the opposite party came to her house and asked her to come to their office alongwith the scooter, for verification of the chassis number, engine number, etc. that after she went to the said office alongwith her scooter they handed over a xerox copy of the letter bearing original signature of the respondent, that they informed her that she failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and demanded her to pay the entire balance loan amount within seven days and threatened to sell the vehicle in case of failure to do so and seized the vehicle, that she never agreed for the terms and conditions of the agreement shown to her, that inspite of handing over 36 post-dated cheques in the name of the opposite party for repayment of the loan, her vehicle was seized high handedly and that the action of the opposite party is arbitrary and therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the delay in booking the vehicle, further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for seizing the vehicle by adopting dubious methods, another sum of Rs. 20,000/- for handing over the xerox copy of letter with the original signature of the opposite party, another sum of Rs. 30,000/- for handing over a concocted document and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- due to mental agony caused on account of the seizure of her vehicle. One A. Srinivas, Assistant Manager of opposite party filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the complaint and stating that the opposite party is doing finance business through its authorised dealers by providing loans to employees, individuals, firms against hire purchase, mortgage, etc., with its branch at Madras, that the opposite party sanctioned the loan of Rs. 14,135/- to the complainant for purchasing the scooter and the said loan is repayable in thirty six (36) instalments of Rs. 549/- each that the dealer of the vehicle was chosen by the complainant herself, that six cheques dated 1.11.1990, 1.1.1991, 1.2.1991, 1.3.1991,1.2.1992 and 1.3.1992 for Rs. 549/- each were dishonoured by the complainant''s Bank, that Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad is the opposite party''s Collection Agent, that on 11.3.1992 the opposite party served a letter on the complainant recalling the loan amount, that on receiving the said letter the complainant simply handed over the vehicle to the field staff of the opposite party without any protest and expressed her inability to drive the vehicle and told that she would take back the vehicle after repaying the loan amount, that the complainant tried to dispose of her vehicle without discharging the loan, that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, that the complainant suppressed the material facts, that the complainant has to repay the loan amount and that she is not entitled to damages since the vehicle cannot be handed over to the complainant unless the loan is discharged, that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Commission in C.D. No. 173/1991 decided on 20.7.1991 between M.V. Krishna Reddy v. Andhra Bank, Gudur, reported in 1992 (1) CPR 456, and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplery costs.

Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs. B-1 to B-5 were marked on behalf of the opposite party. No other evidence was adduced for both parties.

THE point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation and if so to what amount ? On 3.12.1998 when this matter came up for hearing the Counsel for the complainant was not present and there was no representation for the complainant. The matter was posted to 11.2.1999 for dismissal/disposal and from that date it was posted to this day for judgment.

WE have gone through the averments in the complaint and the counter filed on behalf of the opposite party and also the documents filed on behalf of both the parties. The case of the complainant is that she obtained a loan of Rs. 14,135/- from the opposite party for the purpose of purchasing a Kinetic Honda Scooter, that the said loan is repayable in 36 instalments and that after she has paid 11 instalments, the agents of the opposite party came and seized the vehicle by adopting dubious methods. The contention of the opposite party is that the six post-dated cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured by her Bank, that the complainant failed to pay the instalment amounts regularly and that according to the terms and conditions of the agreement they are entitled to retain the vehicle. It is not the case of the complainant that she has discharged the entire loan amount. Exs. B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9 and B-10 are the returned cheques issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Admittedly the complainant has not discharged the loan amount. Earlier this, Commission in C.D. No. 173/1991 between M.V. Krishna Reddy v. Andhra Bank, Gudur, where the facts of the case are similar to the facts of case on hand held that the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party is that of debtor and creditor and when the opposite party seized the tractor and the trailor when the complainant committed default in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement the question of deficiency in service does not arise. In this case also the complainant committed default in payment of the instalment amounts of the loan amount. According to the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement Ex. B-2, the opposite party is entitled to seize the vehicle and retain the same when the complainant commits default in payment of the instalments. We, therefore, hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result the complaint is dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case. Complaint dismissed.