Tribunals and Commissions(2015) 12 NCDRC CK 0075

JASVIRSINGH NAGINDER SINGH GAREWAL vs CHAIRMAN, NASHIK MERCHANTS CO-OP.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 1 December 2015 · Citation: 2016 1 CPJ 412

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.M. Malik, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Pawan Kumar Ray, Akash Kakade, Pramod K. Singh
CASE NUMBER
3213 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 413 words
1.

Shri Jasvirsingh Naghendrasingh Garewal, the complainant, purchased a mini bus by availing loan to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- from Nashik Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd./OP 1. The petitioner defaulted in making the payment, therefore, the vehicle was forcibly taken by the respondent/Bank. There is no dispute about this fact. However, it is surprising to note that the vehicle, which was six years old, was sold as an auth-rickshaw for a paltry amount of Rs.40,000/-. The bank was asked to produce the record and explain why the separate notice was not sent to the complainant before affecting the auction. The respondent-Bank could not produce the evidence in this regard.

2.

This is an admitted fact that description of repossessed vehicle was mentioned as ''authorickshaw''. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has tried to show notices and public notices before affecting the sale of the vehicle. However, the respondent has failed to bolster his case with evidence that the service was affected upon the complainant.

Learned counsel for the respondent/bank argued that the postal record, A.D. card are not traceable because this is an old case. It is, thus, clear that the respondent/Bank has disposed of the mini bus illegally and not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the vehicle was sold as per the estimated value.

3.

Secondly, after re-possession of the vehicle, the vehicle met with an accident. The complainant lodged a claim with the insurance company. The insurance company repudiated the claim as the papers required pertaining to the vehicle, were with the bank. It is, thus clear that the accidental vehicle was sold. The responsibility of accident lies solely at the doors of the respondent/Bank.

4.

Thirdly, the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.1,50,700/-. It is difficult to fathom why the vehicle was sold for a song. Consequently, we pass the following order (i) There is delay of 91 days in filing this complaint. The delay is condoned subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, which be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 45 days, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realization.

(ii) Secondly, we set aside the orders passed by fora below and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,700/- instead of Rs.40,000/-

alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The money already paid shall be adjusted.

3.

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.