Daijiworld Media Network - Udupi (JD)
Udupi, Oct 11: The consumer court here has ruled in favour of a man who was made to run pillar to post for three years in order to get a vehicle he purchased registered in his name.
Srikanth Nayak, a businessman from Manipal here had noticed an advertisement regarding auctioning of seized vehicles being conducted by a bank which was published in a local newspaper. Srikanth approached the said bank and quoted his price for the vehicle. After he bought the vehicle, he learnt that he was unable to register the vehicle in his name as it was banned from fresh registrations. Concerned about this matter, Srikanth approached the consumer court and filed a petition against the bank. Ruling in Srikanth's favour, the court has ordered the bank to return the amount paid by Srikanth for the vehicle with additional compensation.
Over three years ago, on August 27, 2017, Srikanth Nayak, a businessman from Manipal saw an auction notice published by Syndicate Bank, Hampankatta branch concerning the sale of a seized, non-registered vehicle. As an interested customer, Srikanth Nayak filed his tender for the same. Although his quotation was initially rejected, the bank officials later themselves approached Srikanth for facilitating the purchase of the vehicle.
The vehicle was a 2015 Mahindra Bolero ZLX. As the previous owner was unable to pay the monthly instalments to the bank, the latter with the help of its recovery agent seized the vehicle. The vehicle was used by its previous owner for about a year-and-a-half.
The bank then assured to assist Srikanth in getting the vehicle registered in his name. Original invoice of the vehicle, insurance policy (lapsed), duplicate key and blank transfer forms were handed over to Srikanth along with the vehicle for which he had paid Rs 4.8 lac on August 8, 2017. Subsequently, Srikanth approached the RTO to get the vehicle registered, where he was asked to submit a temporary registration certificate of the vehicle and a valid insurance certificate. Srikanth requested the bank to provide him with the details of the temporary registration certificate, to which the bank responded stating that the temporary registration was done in Chikkamagaluru RTO limits. The bank had submitted a cancellation of bank loan certificate to RTO Mangaluru on Aug 21, 2017.
Srikanth then filed an RTI application at Mangaluru RTO to avail details of the vehicle's temporary registration. The RTO responded saying that the vehicle had not been registered in its limits. The bank had written a letter to the Mangaluru RTO to get the registration of the vehicle done in its name on March 8, 2018. Replying to the RTI inquiry Chikkmagaluru RTO provided a temporary registration certificate. However, Srikanth was unable to register his vehicle on that basis because the vehicle was a BS III model and the registration of such vehicles have been banned by the Supreme Court since March 2017. Surprisingly, the bank had put such a vehicle for auction on July 25, 2017, four months after the order of ban was passed by Supreme Court.
Then on August 18, 2018, Srikanth filed an FIR against Syndicate Bank in Mangaluru North (Bunder) police station of which investigation is still in progress.
Srikanth Nayak with the help of RTI Act began collecting all the documents related to the vehicle along with other related documents. He discovered that the vehicle was ordered on December 31, 2015, from a dealer in Mangaluru. The booking was carried out based on a sanction letter provided by the bank to the loan holder on December 30, 2015. The application was submitted for the loan on December 31, 2015. The dealer issued two bills for the same vehicle respectively in Mangaluru and Chikkamagaluru showrooms. RTO in response to the query has clarified that the Chikkamagaluru tax invoice was then cancelled. The original copy of the said cancelled invoice was availed by Srikanth Nayak.
Srikanth, before moving the consumer court, had begun gathering all the pieces of evidence and documents required to support his case, an effort which took several months.
He also filed a consumer complaint in Udupi district Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on September 7, 2018, maintaining that he was unable to use the acquired vehicle in his name due to the bank's incompetence in performing their duty.
Srikanth in his complaint claimed that it was the responsibility of the bank to get the registration details of the vehicle within 30 days of delivery as the vehicle was hypothecated to the bank. The bank was liable to transfer the ownership of the seized vehicle in its name before putting it up for auction.
The court in its order on September 29 last month said that the bank is liable to pay a sum of Rs 4,80,000 with accrued interest @15% per annum from August 21, 2017, to realization. Further, the court ordered the bank to pay another sum of Rs 1 lac towards compensation and also a sum of Rs 20,000 towards cost and litigation expenses including legal notice charges and long correspondence made by Srikanth Nayak. The bank has been given the liberty to take back the said vehicle from Srikanth in its present condition.
Speaking to daijiworld, Srikanth said, "These kinds of incidents have appeared on numerous occasions. It was the bank's responsibility to take action against the loan holder if the vehicle was not registered within 30 days of delivery. Such cases should not be repeated."