ICICI BANK LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER BEHIND RAJBHAWAN CIVIL LINES RAIPUR RAIPUR C.G. Vs. DR. SHYAMALI SARKAR W/O SHRI SHIVNATH SARKAR R/O P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant purchased a Ford Ikon Car and got the same financed from the petitioner Bank to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/-. The loan was payable in 36 instalments of Rs.16,750/- per month. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 22.1.2015 and was taken to the service centre of the manufacturer, namely, M/s Utsav Ford Showroom which gave an estimate of Rs.2,21,295/- for repair of the vehicle. The said estimate along with requisite documents was allegedly submitted to the Insurance Co. The case of the complainant is that when she could not make payment of some of the instalments due to the Bank, the petitioner Bank contacted her and asked her to return the vehicle. She, therefore, surrendered the vehicle to the Bank in September 2005 and signed the surrender form given to her by the said Bank. She also claims to have delivered all the documents to the said Bank while handing over the possession of the vehicle. This is also the case of the complainant that the petitioner Bank had assured to collect the claim amount from the Insurance Co. It is further alleged in the complaint that thereafter the petitioner Bank entered into an agreement with the complainant on 6.2.2006 and again obtained her signature on the surrender form in the presence of three witnesses named in the complaint. The petitioner was also allegedly given an authorisation letter authorising it to collect the vehicle from the Insurance Co. and then sell the same.

(2.) The complainant received a letter from OP No.2 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. on 5.6.2008 demanding an amount of Rs.7,83,327/-. She also received a notice from the Additional Tehsildar calling her upon to make payment of Rs.7,93,455/-. She claims to have sent a letter to the petitioner Bank on 3.10.2011, stating therein that she had already surrendered the vehicle to the said Bank and also authorised it to receive the claimed amount from the Insurance Co. but the Bank had failed to do so. The complainant thereafter approached the concerned District Forum, seeking compensation quantified at Rs.4,00,000/-.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank. The petitioner Bank denied the allegation of the complainant as regards surrender of the vehicle to the Bank. It was pointed out that the alleged consent letter was undated and was not signed by any Bank official.