INDUSIND BANK LIMITED vs SIMARJIT SINGH - Supreme Court Case

INDUSIND BANK LIMITED vs SIMARJIT SINGH - Supreme Court Case 2022

Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2022 Page 1 of 8

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2022

INDUSIND BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SIMARJIT SINGH ..... RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

In July 2006, the respondent-complainant, Simarjit Singh had

availed a loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- from the appellant, IndusInd Bank

Limited for financing a truck. The loan was repayable in equal

monthly instalments of Rs. 35,150/-. The respondent committed

default in payment of three instalments due in October 2007,

November 2007 and February 2008. Consequently, the Bank had

issued demand notice dated 12th March 2008 for payment of Rs.

1,39,335/-. Thereupon, it is accepted, the respondent had paid Rs.

1,04,200/- on 24th March 2008, Rs. 35,150/- on 6th May 2008 and

Rs. 36,000/- on 31st May 2008. Accordingly, Rs. 8,19,300/- was

paid by 31st May 2008, while as per the instalment schedule, the

Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2022 Page 2 of 8

respondent was required to pay only Rs. 8,08,000/- up to June

2008.

2. Despite the respondent not being in arrears, the truck of the

respondent with loaded cargo of timber, going from Gandhi Dham,

Gujarat to Srinagar was stopped near village Bhasaur by about 10-

12 persons on 3rd July 2008. They then forcibly took physical

possession of the truck and the timber.

3. Thereupon, the respondent preferred Consumer Complaint No. 344

of 2008 alleging deficiency in service before the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, which was dismissed vide

order dated 04th December 2008. Thereafter, Appeal No. 11 of 2009

before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Punjab1 was treated/converted into original complaint bearing

Special Consumer Complaint No. 344 of 2008, which complaint

was allowed vide order dated 26th October 2018, with the following

directions:

“i) to pay Rs 10,80,000/- being the value of the truck, in

question, as on the date of repossession, along with

interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

repossession of the vehicle, in question i.e. 05.07.2008

till realization;

ii) to pay Rs 20,00,000/- being the value of the timber

loaded in the truck, in question, to the complainant,

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘SCDRC’. 

Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2022 Page 3 of 8

along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the

date of repossession of the vehicle, in question i.e.

05.07.2008 till realization;

(iii) to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 3,000/- per

month for the loss of livelihood suffered by the

complainant for want of plying the truck, in question, for

all these years, along with interest at the rate of 9% per

annum from the date of repossession i.e. 05.07.2008 till

realization; and

(iv) to pay Rs 40,000/- as litigation expenses.”

4. The appellant Bank and its Chairman moved Revision Petition

bearing No. 187 of 2019 before the National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission,

2 which has been dismissed vide the order

dated 20th July 2021, now assailed before us.

5. The Bank had taken the stand before the SCDRC and the NCDRC

that the respondent had voluntarily surrendered the truck. The foras

for good reasons have rejected this plea. It was evident that the

respondent had deposited Rs. 4,69,323/- as margin money and had

already paid more amount than required under the payment

schedule. The assertion of the Bank that the respondent had taken

another loan of Rs. 8,77,000/- vide Loan Account No. JL 004701H

and had defaulted in payment of the instalments therein was held

2 Hereinafter referred as ‘NCDRC’. 

Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2022 Page 4 of 8

to be inconsequential for the present case as the two transactions

were unrelated and different.

6. This Court, while issuing notice vide order dated 17th September

2021, has recorded that the document(s) relied on by the Bank

evidencing alleged surrender of the truck by the respondent was

held to be fabricated by the SCDRC. This being a finding of fact,

would not be interfered by this Court at this stage. The notice was

limited to the direction assessing Rs. 20,00,000 as the value of the

timber loaded on the truck.

7. The orders dated 26th October 2018 of the SCDRC and 20th July

2021 of the NCDRC are silent on the value of timber and have

merely gone by the figure mentioned by the respondent in the

complaint. The respondent did not enclose and rely upon any

document to support the valuation of timber and the claim for Rs.

20,00,000.

8. The respondent’s stand before us is that the documents relating to

the valuation of the consignment were in the truck itself. Even if this

is to be accepted, the respondent could have placed on record

some documents or confirmation from the consignor or the

consignee to show the value of the timber. It was stated before us

that the truck union, of which the respondent was a member, had

Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2022 Page 5 of 8

settled the matter with the consignor/consignee. However, these

papers were also not placed on record.

9. On the question of value of the timber, the appellant Bank has

gleaned our attention to Annexures P/12 to P/18. These

documents, it is stated, are related to the consignment in question:

the consignment note dated 26th June 2008 issued by New Bikaner

Punjab Haryana Roadlines showing the value of timber (P/12);

retail invoice issued by M/s. Green Gold Timbers Private Limited in

favour of Fayaz Timber Traders, Srinagar (P/13); surrender letter

dated 07th July 2008 executed by the respondent in favour of the

Bank (P/14); letter dated 23rd July 2008 from New Bikaner Punjab

Haryana Road Lines, Gandhi Dham, stating that the timber in truck

No. PB 13Q 8731 had been shifted and loaded on another truck by

their representative Mr. Balwant Singh (P/15); transit slip dated 30th

June 2008 issued by Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab

(P/16); confirmation by Fayaz Timber Traders that they had

received imported timber from Green Gold Timber Private Limited

sent vide G.R. No. 793 dated 26th June 2008 issued by New Bikaner

Punjab Haryana Road Lines, Gandhi Dham (P/17); and letter dated

24th January 2019 of Green Gold Timbers Private Limited

confirming having received payment for the timber from Fayaz

Timber Traders (P/18). Relying on these documents, the appellants 

Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2022 Page 6 of 8

have highlighted that the value of the timber loaded in the truck was

Rs. 4,13,710/- and it was delivered to the consignee.

10. It appears that the above documents were neither filed before the

SCDRC nor the NCDRC. Usually, we would not have taken these

documents on record, albeit we are inclined to pass an order of

remit to the SCDRC as we find that neither of the Commissions

examined and went into the question of valuation of the

consignment. The orders of the SCDRC and the NCDRC to this

extent are flawed.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we partly allow the present

appeal and set aside the impugned order insofar as it affirms that

the Bank is to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- as the cost/value of the timber

along with interest @ 9% per annum, with an order of remit to the

SCDRC to examine this issue afresh without being influenced by its

earlier order, including the order passed by the NCDRC. The

appellants and the respondent would be permitted to file additional

documents regarding delivery to the consignee and the valuation of

the consignment, including the documents filed by the Bank before

us. The parties would be asked to lead evidence through affidavits.

However, we clarify that we have not interfered with the direction

requiring the appellants to pay Rs. 10,80,000/- being the truck’s 

Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2022 Page 7 of 8

value along with interest @ 9% per annum from 5th July 2008 till

realisation, compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per month for the loss of

livelihood along with interest @ 9% per annum from 5th July 2008

till realisation and Rs. 40,000/- as litigation expenses.

12. It is stated that the Bank had already deposited Rs. 28,34,496/-

before the SCDRC. The amount to the extent we have upheld the

order of the NCDRC would be paid to the respondent. In case there

is any discrepancy or short payment, it will be open to the

respondent to question the computation made by the Bank. We

would also like to clarify that compensation granted @ Rs. 3,000/-

per month for loss of livelihood from 5th July 2008 would be payable

for the period up to 31st October 2018, along with interest @ 9% per

annum from 5th July 2008 up till realisation/payment was made. The

compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per month would not be payable post

the decision of the SCDRC on 26th October 2018. We have rounded

the date to 31st October, 2018.

13. To cut short any delay, parties are directed to appear before the

SCDRC along with their affidavits by way of evidence enclosing

therewith necessary documents on 21st March 2022. On the said

date, the SCDRC would fix the date for consideration of evidence

and, if required and necessary, cross-examination may be directed. 

Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2022 Page 8 of 8

As the case is fairly old, it would be appropriate if the proceedings

are concluded within six months from the first date of hearing.

14. There will be no order as to costs.

...........................................J.

(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD)

...........................................J.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 03, 2022.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले