MOSHEB AHEMED SIDIK Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for recovery of the vehicle bearing registration number OR -04 -E -4717 from opposite party No. 2 -Bank and to hand over the same to the petitioner and for a direction that the tax and penalty for the seizure period be recovered from opposite party No. 2 and further to cancel the licence of opposite party No. 2.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner took a loan from the Induslnd Bank Limited for purchase of a truck bearing registration number OR -04 -E -4717. It is alleged that though the petitioner was paying the instalments regularly, the truck in question was taken possession of by the Bank authorities by use of force, as alleged, on 10.6.2007. Although the petitioner moved the authorities for release of the truck, they did not release the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum registered as C.C. Case No. 372 of 2007 and the Consumer Forum on 19.7.2007 passed the following order: Learned Counsel for the complainant in the misc. case prays release of the vehicle bearing No. OR -04 -E -4717 which has been seized by the O.P. on 10.6.07 when two Nos. of E.M.Is. were in default. Learned Counsel for the O.P. though objects, concedes to the prayer of his counterpart on the condition that all the defaulted E.M.Is. would be paid within 7 days prior to release of the vehicle. With the above, we direct the O.P. for release of the vehicle within 7 days subject to clearance of up -to -date defaulted E.M.Is. and further direct the complainant to become regular in payment of future E.M.Is. failing which the O.P. will be at liberty to take action as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.' Learned Counsel for the O.P. files objection to the amendment petition filed by the learned Counsel for the complainant. Heard, directed as under.

(3.) PURSUANT to notice, the Bank has entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that after the order of the Consumer Forum, the petitioner has neither given any representation nor made any deposit as directed by the District Consumer Forum. It has been further stated therein that as the petitioner defaulted in making payment of the instalment and the defaulted amount was more than Rs. 1,25,521.00 by 19.4.2007, the Bank issued registered notice to the petitioner for clearance of the defaulted amount and as the petitioner did not clear the outstanding dues, the Bank was forced to seize the vehicle on 10.6.2007 as per Clause 15(2) of the Loan Agreement filed as Annexure -A/2. The Bank has denied the fact of filing of any representation by the petitioner. It is emphatically asserted in the counter affidavit that the Bank has never adopted any strong armed practice to seize the vehicle. Therefore, the Bank has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in Manager, ICICI, Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and Ors. 2007(1) OLR (SC) 472 : (2007) 36 OCR (SC) 815, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Bank in seizing the vehicle in the manner it has been done is illegal.