The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench recently ruled in favor of the Complainant in a case against RBL Bank Ltd. The bank was found liable for deficiency in services for failing to honor an agreement to return a tractor upon payment of outstanding installments by the Complainant.
Background of the Case
The Complainant had purchased a Sonalika DI-50 tractor from M/s Yogesh Tractors, with partial financing from RBL Bank Ltd. The Complainant had been making regular installment payments until facing financial difficulties, which caused him to miss payments in April and May 2023. As a result, the bank officials seized the tractor from the Complainant’s residence on May 25, 2023.
To resolve the issue, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Police Authorities, which led to an agreement between the Complainant and the bank. According to the agreement, the tractor would be returned to the Complainant upon payment of the outstanding installments.
Bank’s Failure to Return the Tractor
Despite the Complainant fulfilling the payment obligations by making payments totaling Rs. 27,165/- in May and June 2023, the bank refused to return the tractor. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, and filed a consumer complaint against the bank.
Decision of the District Commission
During the proceedings, the bank did not appear before the District Commission. The Commission noted that the Complainant had made regular installment payments but faced financial difficulties that led to the inability to pay installments in April and May 2023. The Commission also found that despite having an agreement with the Complainant, the bank failed to return the tractor. Additionally, the absence of the bank during the proceedings resulted in the Complainant’s claim going unchallenged and unrebutted.
As a result, the District Commission held RBL Bank Ltd. liable for deficiency in services for failing to honor the agreement made with the Complainant. The Commission directed the bank to release the tractor to the Complainant in the same condition as when it was taken into possession. However, the Complainant was instructed to deposit any outstanding balance to the bank within one month of the order. Furthermore, the bank was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for the inconvenience caused.
Conclusion
In the case against RBL Bank Ltd., the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, held the bank liable for failing to return a seized tractor despite the Complainant fulfilling the payment obligations. The Commission directed the bank to release the tractor and ordered the Complainant to pay any outstanding amount. Additionally, the bank was instructed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
