ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. KHIROD KUMAR BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order shall dispose of Revision Petition No. 1112 of 2007 filed by the ICICI Bank (for short, the Bank), which was opposite party before the District Forum and Revision Petition No. 2297/2007 filed by the Khirod Kumar Behera, who was Complainant before the District Forum (hereinafter referred to as Complainant) against the same Order dated 20.2.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission) passed in Appeal Nos. 726 and 797 of 2006, wherein the State Commission has directed the Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000 towards compensation for mental agony and loss of business to the Complainant and has further directed .the Bank to pay Rs. 2,14,000 which was received by the Bank towards margin money along with Rs. 5,000 as costs.

(2.) AS per allegation made in the complaint, Complainant in order to eke out his livelihood by way of self-employment decided to purchase a tipper. He approached the Bank for sanction of loan. Bank agreed to advance loan and obtained an agreement in that regard from him. Loan amounting to Rs. 12,12,565 was sanctioned which was to be repaid by the Complainant in 35 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 39,805. Complainant purchased Tata tipper for Rs. 14,26,565. He paid Rs. 2,14,000 as down payment to the Bank and balance amount of Rs. 12,12,565 was financed by the Bank. He also spent Rs. 52,000 for registration, insurance, road tax etc. for the vehicle which came to be registered as OR-09-F-0087. It is alleged that although Complainant had been paying the instalments, the Bank without any notice seized the vehicle on 8th November, 2005. When Complainant approached the officials of the Bank to know about the reasons of seizure of the vehicle, he was told that he had defaulted in payment of loan instalments. By that time, out of twelve instalments, he had paid ten instalments and there was default of payment of two instalments only. He assured the Bank officials that he would repay the outstanding dues and requested them to release the vehicle but his entreat yielded no result. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, Complainant filed a complaint before District Forum claiming Rs. 90,000 compensation on three counts.

(3.) ON being served, Bank entered appearance and filed its written statement justifying seizure of the vehicle. According to Bank, Complainant had committed to it that he would regularly pay instalment dues on 22nd of every month, but he did not adhere to it. He was telegraphically informed that unless he paid outstanding amount of Rs. 79,610, action in accordance with the agreement would be taken. Complainant did not pay any heed to the warning. Under the circumstances, Bank was left with no option but to take possession of the vehicle on 8.11.2005. After repossessing the vehicle, Bank issued letter on 12th November, 2006 to Complainant asking him to pay Rs. 9,91,346 along with other charges within 7 days, but he did not care to it. Ultimately, the vehicle was sold to one Kailash Singh for Rs. 7,25,000 on 27.1.2006.