AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant purchased a Ford Ikon Car and got the same financed from the petitioner Bank to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/-. The loan was payable in 36 instalments of Rs.16,750/- per month. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 22.1.2015 and was taken to the service centre of the manufacturer, namely, M/s Utsav Ford Showroom which gave an estimate of Rs.2,21,295/- for repair of the vehicle. The said estimate along with requisite documents was allegedly submitted to the Insurance Co. The case of the complainant is that when she could not make payment of some of the instalments due to the Bank, the petitioner Bank contacted her and asked her to return the vehicle. She, therefore, surrendered the vehicle to the Bank in September 2005 and signed the surrender form given to her by the said Bank. She also claims to have delivered all the documents to the said Bank while handing over the possession of the vehicle. This is also the case of the complainant that the petitioner Bank had assured to collect the claim amount from the Insurance Co. It is further alleged in the complaint that thereafter the petitioner Bank entered into an agreement with the complainant on 6.2.2006 and again obtained her signature on the surrender form in the presence of three witnesses named in the complaint. The petitioner was also allegedly given an authorisation letter authorising it to collect the vehicle from the Insurance Co. and then sell the same.
The complainant received a letter from OP No.2 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. on 5.6.2008 demanding an amount of Rs.7,83,327/-. She also received a notice from the Additional Tehsildar calling her upon to make payment of Rs.7,93,455/-. She claims to have sent a letter to the petitioner Bank on 3.10.2011, stating therein that she had already surrendered the vehicle to the said Bank and also authorised it to receive the claimed amount from the Insurance Co. but the Bank had failed to do so. The complainant thereafter approached the concerned District Forum, seeking compensation quantified at Rs.4,00,000/-.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank. The petitioner Bank denied the allegation of the complainant as regards surrender of the vehicle to the Bank. It was pointed out that the alleged consent letter was undated and was not signed by any Bank official.
Vide its order dated 18.2.2014, the District Forum directed both the opposite parties, i.e., the petitioner Bank as well as the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/-. Interest @ 9% from the date of the complaint was also awarded on the awarded amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner Bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The complainant also filed a counter appeal challenging the order of the District Forum since she was not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded to her. The State Commission vide its order dated 31.7.2015, dismissed both the appeals. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner Bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that after the vehicle had met with an accident, it was parked in the workshop of M/s Utsav Ford Showroom and then surrendered to the petitioner Bank which was also authorized to collect the claim amount from the insurer of the vehicle and then sell the said vehicle. In support of her case in this regard, the complainant has relied upon the undated consent letter/authority letter purported to have been executed in favour of the petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd. However, the aforesaid document admittedly has not been signed by any Bank official. There is no explanation as to why the complainant did not get the said consent letter signed from the Bank despite the Bank having allegedly agreed to accept the surrender of the vehicle and further having agreed to receive the insurance claim from the insurer United India Insurance Co. Moreover, there is no acknowledgement of the said consent letter/authority letter having been received by the petitioner Bank. In case the aforesaid consent letter was delivered to the Bank, the complainant would have taken acknowledgement from the Bank official in token of his having received the letter. In fact, the complainant even did not disclose the name of the Bank official who allegedly received the said consent letter/authority letter which, as noted earlier is an undated document. The complaint does not even disclose the precise date on which the aforesaid consent letter/authority letter was allegedly delivered to the Bank. In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that no such consent letter/authority letter was ever given by the complainant to the petitioner Bank. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove that the petitioner Bank had taken possession of the vehicle in question which admittedly was lying in the workshop of Utsav Ford Showroom at the relevant time. Another important aspect in this regard is that there is no evidence of the petitioner Bank having taken delivery of the said vehicle from M/s Utsav Ford Showroom. Had the petitioner Bank accepted the surrender of the vehicle as is claimed by the complainant, the first thing it would have done was to take delivery of the vehicle from M/s Utsav Ford Showroom. Though the case of the complainant is that the petitioner Bank had also agreed to receive the claim amount directly from the insurer of the vehicle M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., there is no evidence of the petitioner Bank having even asked the said Insurance Co. to pay the claim amount in respect of the vehicle in question to it. Had the petitioner Bank accepted the surrender of the vehicle as is claimed by the complainant, it would have written to the insurer of the vehicle asking it to pay the compensation amount to the Bank instead of paying it to the complainant.
The complainant has also relied upon a letter dated Feb. 6, 2006 purporting to have been written by her to the Bank and referring to the surrender of the vehicle. Again there is no proof of the said letter having been delivered to the Bank. No signature of any Bank official nor the seal of the Bank appears on the copy of the aforesaid letter filed by the complainant before the District Forum. Again, the complaint is silent as regards the name of the Bank official who allegedly received the aforesaid letter from the complainant. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid letter dated February 6, 2006 was never delivered by the complainant to the petitioner Bank.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the vehicle in question was never surrendered by the complainant to the petitioner Bank. The finding returned by the Fora below in favour of the complainant is patently perverse, the said being without any evidence to substantiate the case set out in the complaint.
For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed. 10 The learned counsel for the complainant states that the order of the Fora below should be maintained as far as it pertains to the Kotak Mahindra Bank since that Bank did not challenge the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. However, since the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency on the part of the OP No.2 in rendering services to her, no justification for grant of any compensation by OP No.2 to the complainant is made out. The complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed against both the Banks and stands dismissed as such. The amount deposited by the petitioner Bank with the District Forum pursuant to the interim order of this Commission dated 15.10.2015, be refunded it to the petitioner Bank, along with interest if any, which may have accrued on that amount. It is however made clear that the conveyance charges which were to be paid to the complainant in terms of order of this Commission dated 17.11.2015 if already not paid, shall be remitted to the complainant within one week from today.