The State Consumer Commission hasdismissed a Standard Chartered Bank's plea against a districtforum order to it to pay Rs 2.97 lakh to a loanee for seizingher car for non-payment of a meagre sum of Rs 30,000 andselling it despite subsequent payment of all dues by her.
The vehicle was sold after the loanee refused to take itback as its crucial parts had allegedly been removed,rendering the vehicle to a non-working condition.
The Delhi State Consumer Commission observed the woman'swillingness to pay the remaining loan amount of Rs 30,000showed she was keen to take the car back and there must havebeen some compelling reason for her for not doing so.
"It appears that statement of respondent (loanee) thatthe vehicle was not in a condition for taking possession needsto be accepted. It is evident that on one hand the appellantbank (Standard Chartered) is entering into an arrangement toreturn the car on payment of Rs 30,000 and on the other handits officers allowed parts of the car to be removed which is acase of negligence and serious deficiency-in-service.
"We are of considered opinion that a case of deficiencyin service is made out beyond doubt and to serve the ends ofjustice it would not be proper to interfere with the order ofthe district forum. The appeal is accordingly dismissed," thebench presided by Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi said.
In her complaint to the district forum, Delhi residentSunita Verma had alleged that her car, a Maruti Omni, boughtin August 2001 on a loan from the bank was taken away by it ondefault of payment and despite her paying the remaining amountthe vehicle was sold.
While admitting that Verma had paid the remaining Rs30,000 to it, the Standard Chartered had alleged that the carwas sold after she refused to take possession of it.
The district forum, however, had held the bank guilty ofrendering deficient service and had directed it to refund herRs 2.37 lakh she had paid to clear her loan and also anothersum of Rs 60,000 as compensation and litigation cost.
