PRITPAL SINGH vs CITI BANK, N.A.

THE complainant purchased a Delux Maruti Car with AC bearing No. CHK-2200. It was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. A sum of Rs. 90,000/- was obtained as a loan from the respondent-bank on 25.2.92, it was repayable in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 3681/- each. It has been alleged that on 19/20.11.92 some officials of the respondent-bank collected the Motor Car on the pretext as if they were to inspect this vehicle but it has not been returned to him. It has been alleged that no instalment was outstanding against him because he had paid Rs. 33,129/- till November 92. THE relief claimed by the complainant is reproduced as under : (i) direct the respondent-bank to return the car CHK-2200 Delux Maruti with all its fittings and accessories and in the same condition as it was taken from the complainant on 29.11.92. (ii) direct the respondent to pay damages on account of harassment and loss of reputation and goodwill to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. (iii) direct the respondent-bank to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day to the complainant on account of hire charges of the taxi. (iv) in the alternative, suitable orders and directions may kindly be made to pay the price of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash the car is not found to be in the same condition in which it was taken away by the respondent-bank or if it has been made unserviceable. (v) any other suitable, just and proper relief may also be allowed to the complainant which may be found proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in addition to grant of costs of the proceedings.

THE respondent-bank filed a reply wherein it has been averred that the motor car was an old one of 1987 model. It was insured only for Rs. 1,20,000/-. THE loan of Rs. 90,000/- was disbursed to the complainant on 12.2.92 and according to agreement even if there was a default of single monthly instalment of Rs. 3,681/- it was a breach of the agreement. It has, further been averred that the complainant''s wife also obtained a separate loan of Rs. 82,000/- from the respondent vide Auto Loan A/c Number U5-304-37488 and it was payable by monthly instalment of Rs. 3,354 /- each. It was denied that a sum of Rs. 35,105 /- was received by the respondent from the complainant in respect of the loan obtained by the complainant. We have perused the letter of the complainant dated 20.1.93 and also the statement of the Citi Bank issued by its Manager. This shows that after the loan was granted on 12.2.92, the complainant did not make payment of any instalment till September 92. The instalments for March, April and May 1992 were paid on 27.10.92. It was obviously a case of continuous defaults. The complainant availed of the vehicle from February 92 till 19/20.11.92. The learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to Surinder Mohan Arora v. Citi Bank Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 1994 (1) C-Cases 143, where a motor car 118 NE was valued at Rs. 2,15,357.39 and out of that a sum of Rs. 1,86,249/- was made available by the Citi Bank. In that case the motor car was forcibly seized from the residential premises of the complainant and it was disliked by the Commission. The bank was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,17,300/- together with interest. The facts of the case now in hand are partly distinguishable inasmuch as in the Delhi case only two instalments were outstanding whereas in the present case three instalments were paid. The motor car was also an old one. When we examined an Officer of the respondent Shri Rajesh Sharma, he told that the vehicle was lying in their godown for the last four years and it was not in a serviceable condition and it could not be brought to Chandigarh. Since the respondent did not serve any notice on the complainant, there was deficiency on account of forcible/trickful removal of the motor car from possession of the complainant.

We have perused the statement of payments made by the complainant. After ignoring the alleged oral payment of Rs. 4,000/-, it is held that a sum of Rs. 21,105/- has been received by the respondent out of the loan. The cost of the sold car was Rs. 1,20,000/- at the time of purchase. Allowing the depreciation @ 10% p.a. the depreciation for the period 25.2.92 to 19/20.11.92 while the vehicle remained with the complainant would be Rs. 9,000/- and the price of the car which was suddenly taken into possession by the respondent comes to Rs. 1,11,000/-. The respondent-bank had advanced Rs. 90,000/- and it had taken into possession the vehicle valued at Rs. 1,11,000/-. The bank has also received the sum of Rs. 21,105/- from the complainant. The complainant is therefore entitled to a sum of Rs. 21,105/- plus the difference between the value of the car as on 20th November, 92 and the aforesaid sum of Rs. 21,000/-. Thus the complainant is held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 42,105/-. Accordingly we order that the respondent shall pay this amount to complainant within a period of two months failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of this order.

ANNOUNCED. The orders be communicated to the parties fee of charges. Complaint disposed of accordingly.