LAWS(NCD)-2018-8-23

ICICI BANK LTD Vs. TAPAN BOSE & ORS

Decided On August 08, 2018
ICICI BANK LTD Appellant
V/S
Tapan Bose And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by the appellant ICICI Bank Ltd. against the order dated 02.11.2007 of the tate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint Case No.CC-2007/49.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant (respondent No.1 herein) filed a complaint before the State Commission against the opposite party No.1 bank (appellant herein). Opposite party No.2 to 9 being functionaries of opposite party No.1 bank are other respondents herein. The complainant had taken a loan of Rs.3,40,749/- for purchasing a Maruti Swift car. He had booked the Maruti Swift car from his own funds i.e. an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash vide receipt No.14758 on 26.05.2005 to M/s. Sikand & Co. Amount of Rs.3,40,749/- was paid on 09.07.2005 to M/s. Sikand & Co. He also made the payment of Rs.7661/- on 11.07.2005. Thereafter he took delivery of a silver colour Maruti Swift car bearing registration No.DL 2CP 4390. He had been paying the monthly instalments regularly as the opposite party bank had already taken post dated cheques from him for the repayment of loan amount. Moreover some payments were being collected by the bank through ECS and cash also. Three cheques of different months had bounced and thereafter the complainant started making the payments through ECS and later on he started paying the EMIS in cash to the agents of the opposite party No.1. However, the opposite parties never bothered to return the post -dated cheques which had bounced. He requested the agents/employees of the opposite party No.1 to try and appreciate that he was having some problem with his bank account and for this reason he was interested in paying instalments in cash and taking back the cheques. Due to some instability in the business he was not able to pay three or four instalments to the opposite parties. He had never received any notice, letter or intimation from any of the agents or authorized representatives or employees of the opposite party No.1 with regard to any irregularity in the loan account of complainant with regard to the Maruti Swift car till 15.01.2007 on which date he received a letter dated 12.01.2007. However, on 08.01.2007 at about 5:15 p.m. the complainant had gone to DDCA Club along with one Vinod who was the son of his friend and was driving his car on that day. On reaching the club he asked Vinod to come with him inside the Club but Vinod told him that he would rather sit in the car. As soon as the complainant after sometime reached the parking area, he saw Vinod lying on the road approximately 60 to 100 meters away from the car from where the car was parked and the car was not there. He saw Vinod bleeding heavily from head and toe. Vinod later on told that the people from opposite party Bank took the vehicle forcibly and in order to do so beat him. When he tried to catch hold of the car to stop it, he was dragged with the car.

(3.) Being aggrieved, complainant/respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the following order on 02.11.2007:-