Interesting Consumer Cases
Idea Cellular Fined 25,000 for deficiency of service
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAIFIRST APPEAL NO. 813 OF 2008
Date of filing : 05/05/2008@ MISC. APPL. NO. 1108 OF 2008
Date of order : 12/11/2008IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 197 OF 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NASHIK
Idea Cellular Ltd.
Thru AGM – Legal
Sharada Centre, 11/1 Earandawane,
Off. Karve Road, Pune – 411 004. … Appellant/org. O.P.No.1V/s.
1. Shri Hemant D. Kulkarni
R/at Pushpakraj Bungalow,
Patil Colony, Lane No.4, College Road,
Near Archies Gallery, Nashik-422 005.2. Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat
6, Dharmaraj Plaza, Old Gangapur Naka,
Gangapur Road, Nashik-422 002. … Respondents/org. complainantsCorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble MemberPresent: Mr.R.P. Bafna, Advocate for the appellant.
Repondent No.1 Mr.H.D. Kulkarni in person.
– : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
This appeal filed by org. O.P. in consumer complaint No.197/2007 is directed against the order dated 25/03/2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Nashik, whereby the Forum below directed the O.P. to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards cost.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-
The complainant is Editor of the Lokmat newspaper. He had been allotted two cellular connections in a special scheme introduced jointly by Idea and Lokmat in the year 2007. The O.P. was allotted a mobile Nos.9922915050 and 9922911149 to the complainant.
According to the complainant, bill for the period 15/04/2007 to 14/05/2007 was issued to the complainant No.1 for total amounting to Rs.2,186.07 by the O.P. The due date of the bill was 30/05/2007. The complainant paid the said bill on 25/05/2007. The O.P. deposited the said cheque and the cheque was encashed by the O.P.
It is alleged by the complainant that in spite of payment of said bill promptly, O.P. disconnected the mobile connection of the complainant on 28/05/2007. The said cheque was credited to the account of the Company and remained outstanding on 30/05/2007. Therefore, due to the negligence of O.P., the outgoing calls of the complainant were barred by the O.P. The complainant sent Email to the O.P. on 30/05/2007. Even after sending Email message, O.P. did not restore the mobile connections and therefore, the complainant’s outgoing calls were barred for four days and therefore, complainant suffered mental agony and hence, he filed consumer complaint before the Forum below.
O.P. filed written statement and contended that the complainant sent cheque to the O.P. but full account number was not mentioned on the back side of the cheque as also remittance slip was not attached with the cheque. O.P. along with other cheques deposited the said cheque in the account of the Company. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. and finally it prayed for dismissal of complaint.
We heard Mr.R.P. Bafna, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.H.D. Kulkarni, respondent No.1/org. complainant in person.
After considering the affidavits and documents placed before it, the Learned District Consumer Forum passed the impugned order and allowed the complaint. The respondent No.1 is the Editor of the Lokmat newspaper at Kolhapur. Respondent No.1 is having two mobile numbers. It contended by the respondent No.1 that even after making prompt payment of the bill for the period 15/04/2007 to 14/05/2007, the appellant barred the outgoing calls of the respondent No.1 for four days.
The appellant in their defence contended that due to non-payment of bill, all the outgoing calls were barred by the appellant. The said cheque was credited to the account of the Company and amount due to the respondent No.1 showed outstanding. The respondent No.1 received bill for Rs.2,187.07 and he paid by cheque drawn on ICICI Bank on 25/05/2007 and amount was debited to the respondent No.1 on 28/05/2007. The last date for payment was 30/05/2007. However, both the lines were put on hold from 30/05/2007. The respondent No.1 sent Email on 30/05/2007, but appellant failed to reconnect the mobile lines of the respondent No.1. Even after four days mobile lines were not connected to the respondent No.1. We perused the summary of accounts dated 30/06/2007 issued by ICICI Bank and Email dated 31/05/2007, which clearly go to show that in spite of making payment of bill promptly by the respondent No.1, appellant barred the outgoing calls of the respondent No.1, which not only amounts to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice as contemplated under Section 2(1)(g) & (r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
As contended by the appellant, even if account number has not been mentioned by the respondent No.1 while paying bill, after receiving Email from the respondent No.1, appellant should have immediately restored the outgoing calls of the respondent No.1. Under the circumstances, the Forum below rightly passed an award against the appellant and directed the appellant to pay Rs.25,000/-. We find that the order passed by the Forum below is just, proper and sustainable in law and there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant herein. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
2. Misc. Appl. No.1108/2008, which is for stay stands disposed of.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
ICICI Bank Fined Rs.1,95,983/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1/3/2007 and to pay him Rs.70,000/- towards loss of business and Rs.1,000/- towards cost.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATEFIRST APPEAL NO.1527/2007 Date of Filing:- 30/11/2007
IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.63/2007 Date of Order:-15/10/2008
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, SOLAPURICICI Bank Limited,
Mangal Gauri Complex,
Hotagi Naka, Solapur,
Talshil-District-Solapur … Appellant (Org.Complainant)-Versus -
Ravindra Navnath Yadav,
Bhutashte, Taluka-Madha,
District-Solapur … Respondent (Org. Opponent)Corum :- Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member,
Smt.S.P.Lale,Hon’ble Member.
Present :- Ms.Suyoga Rajguru, Adv. for the Appellant.
Mr.N.R.Kolashetty, Adv. for the Respondent.O R D E R
Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal by ICICI Bank/Org. O.P. against the judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Solapur whereby while allowing the complaint, the Forum below directed ICICI Bank to pay to the complainant amount of Rs.1,95,983/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1/3/2007 and to pay him Rs.70,000/- towards loss of business and Rs.1,000/- towards cost.
Briefly, the case of the parties in the Forum below may be stated as under:-
The complainant is an agriculturist. He had taken loan from ICICI Bank, Solapur branch for purchase of tractor and trolley. He had executed various documents to procure loan. He had also given post dated cheques as demanded. According to the complainant, bank had not informed him the payment schedule and therefore he was unable to repay the loan. Ultimately, he deposited Rs.44,183/- in the bank as first installment on 29/7/2006 but without using post dated cheques, on 14/8/2006, the bank sent notice to the complainant informing him that Rs.11,358/- was still payable by the complainant towards the loan of trolley. Immediately, the complainant went to the bank and desired to deposit the said amount but bank staff refused to accept the same. From the very next day some agents from the bank started harassing him. He told him that he had already given post dated blank cheques and bank should use those cheques. Not a single cheque has been returned as dishonoured. He further showed his willingness to pay all the installments of the loan. Still bank did not accept his offer and without giving any notice, the bank took away head of tractor and he suffered severe loss. Thereafter, on 15/12/2006, the bank issued him notice to pay amount of Rs.8,386/-. He went to the bank but bank employees asked him immediately deposit amount of Rs.23,927/-. According to the complainant this action on the part of the bank is amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He therefore filed consumer complaint for getting back his tractor and also claimed Rs.20 Lakhs as damages as per chartered accountant’s report.
The bank filed written statement and denied most of the averments of the complainant. The bank pleaded that as per hypothecation agreement, the complainant can not file consumer complaint in the Forum. The bank pleaded that the complainant committed default in paying installments of the loans. On 8/7/2006, notice was given to the complainant and thereafter as per rules tractor head was taken in their possession. The bank pleaded that it justifiably took possession of the vehicle since the complainant committed default in repayment of the loan. According to the bank, the complainant got prepared bogus statement from the C.A and based on it he has filed consumer complaint and is claiming Rs.20 Lakhs as damages. The bank pleaded that as per hypothecation agreement, since loan was not repaid in time the bank could take possession of the subject vehicle. Hence, the bank pleaded that complaint is devoid of any substance and should be dismissed with cost.
On perusal of affidavits and documents placed on record, the learned District Forum after appreciating the facts and circumstances on record held that the bank was deficient in service. Without giving due notice, the bank had taken possession of the head of the tractor. The bank had not lodged post dated cheques given by the complainant and simply went on sending notices about default committed by the complainant. The bank was not prepared to accept amount tendered by the complainant and without notice sold away the subject vehicle and therefore the Forum below held that the bank was guilty of deficiency in service and allowed the complaint and passed order as reproduced in para 1 of the judgment. As such, the ICICI Bank/Org.O.P. has filed this appeal.
We heard Ms.Suyoga Rajguru,Adv. for the appellant and Mr.N.R.Kaloshetty, Adv. for the respondent. We perused the impugned judgment and award and we are finding that order passed by the forum below is proper and sustainable in law. When post dated cheques were given by the complainant or were taken from the complainant by the bank towards repayment of dues, it was the duty of the bank to tender those cheques and to recover the dues or to prove that those cheques had been bounced for insufficient funds. Nothing on this sort was done by the appellant bank. Tractor head of the complainant was pulled and confiscated by the bank on 14/10/2006 despite the fact that no notice was issued to the complainant before repossession of tractor head. No letter of contract termination was sent to the complainant before repossession of the tractor head. The complainant had always sufficient bank balance to satisfy installments agreed upon by the parties. No cheque had bounced as given by the complainant. The bank was not prepared to accept monies tendered by the complainant towards repayment of dues and therefore repossession of tractor was bad in law and as such the Forum below allowed the complaint and passed impugned order. Now a days some financial institutions are resorting to arm twisting tactics to recover loan from the so called defaulters. They are giving short notice to the defaulters and even if defaulters are prepared to pay the dues they are not accepting. We have come across so many cases of such nature and therefore we are inclined to rely upon the case put forth by the respondent. In the circumstances, this appeal is appearing to be devoid of any substance because bank was guilty of deficiency in service as held by the Forum below. Hence, we pass following order.
O R D E R
1) The appeal is summarily dismissed.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.(Smt.S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar )
Member Presiding Judicial MemberMalve/-
ICICI Bank plays fraud on a widow
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAIFIRST APPEAL NO. 1532 OF 2007 Date of filing : 03/12/2007
@ MISC. APPL. NO. 2070 OF 2007 Date of order : 05/07/2008IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 153 OF 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SOLAPURICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089,
Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi,
Mumbai – 400 025. … Appellant/org. O.P.
V/s.
Smt.Latika Shivshankar Salunke
R/at 20-A, Jaybhawani Housing Society,
Civil Lines, Kumtha Naka, Solapur. … Respondent/org. complainantCorum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble President
Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble MemberPresent: Mr.Sachin Chandarana, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms.Bindu Jain, Advocate for the respondent.
– : ORDER :-
Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble PresidentThis appeal filed by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. is directed against the order dated 22/10/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum Solapur.
We heard Mr.Sachin Chandarana, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company and Ms.Bindu Jain, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant.FACTUAL BACKGROUND :-
Shivshankar Pandurang Salunkhe had taken lifetime insurance policy. Sum assured was Rs.5,50,000/-. He submitted proposal on 26/05/2006. The proposal was accepted by the Insurance Company. The risk was covered with effect from 04/08/2006. The premium was to be made on 1st of every month. Grace period not more than 15 days was allowed. The insured paid two installments after commencement of the policy. The insured paid premium due on 01/10/2006 by cheque dated 19/10/2006. The insured paid premium due on 01/11/2006 also by cheque dated 01/11/2006. The insured died on 15/12/2006. The widow lodged the claim. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy was in lapsed condition. According to the Insurance Company both the cheques were dishonoured on account of mismatched signature. Therefore, the widow filed consumer complaint in the District Consumer Forum Solapur. The said complaint was opposed by the Insurance Company. The Forum below rejected the defence raised by the Insurance Company and allowed the complaint. The Forum below directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 03/05/2007.
The Learned Advocate Mr.Chandarana vehemently submitted that cheque dated 19/10/2006 was dishonoured on 20/10/2006 on account of mismatched signature. Similarly, cheque dated 01/11/2006 was dishonoured on 03/11/2006 on account of mismatched signature. The Learned Advocate Mr.Chandarana argued further that due to failure to pay premium the policy was lapsed. He also argued that for want of consideration the contract of insurance is void. He pointed out that some of the observations made by the District Consumer Forum are contrary to the well settled legal position. He relied upon a decision of the National Commission in the case of United India Insurance Co. V/s. N. Mohan Reddy, I (1996) CPJ 11 (NC) and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Seema Malhotra & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 151. On the other hand, Learned Advocate Ms.Bindu Jain argued that the cheques were dishonoured fraudulently. She pointed out that there was sufficient balance in the account of the insured. She strongly supported the impugned order under challenge.
We gave anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar.
Some of the observations made by the District Consumer Forum are certainly contrary to the well settled legal position. The Forum below has arrived at a conclusion that it was a moral duty of the Insurance Company to give intimation to the insured about non-encashment of cheque on account of mismatched signature. The National Commission has held in the case (mentioned supra) that there is no obligation on the Insurance Company to give intimation of dishonouring of the cheque. We therefore hold that the observations made by the Forum below in this behalf are not proper. There is no quarrel with regard to proposition of law laid down in the case of Seema Malhotra & Ors. decided by the Supreme Court. Section 25 & 65 of the Contract Act, 1872 are very much clear. Where the premium remains unpaid on account of non-encashment of cheque, contract of insurance becomes void.
After having subjected the entire material to close scrutiny, we find considerable force in the argument of Learned Advocate Ms.Bindu Jain. The complainant has specifically raised issue in the complaint itself that the Insurance Company being Sister Concern of ICICI Bank, practiced fraud. It is admitted fact that the insured had account in the ICICI Bank Branch at Solapur. It is admitted fact that cheques, which are shown to have been dishonoured on account of mismatched signature were in fact presented in the Bank at Solapur. We carefully examined the two memos issued by the Bank. These two memos are issued by ICICI Bank Branch at Kolhapur. We fail to understand as to how two cheques, which were presented in the ICICI Bank, Solapur Branch travelled to Kolhapur. Specimen signature of the insured was with the ICICI Bank, Branch at Solapur. There was no specimen signature of the insured in the ICICI Bank, Branch at Kolhapur. It is beyond our comprehension as to how the Branch at Kolhapur dishonoured the cheques on account of mismatched signature. This is a fraud played by the ICICI Bank to avoid payment to a widow.
A reference with profit can be made to the decision of the National Commission in the case of Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Co. V/s. Umadevi, NC & SC on Consumer Cases 1986-94 page-908 (NS). It is held by the National Commission that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has not only a jurisdiction, but also a duty to investigate into the question whether the charge made by the Insurance Company on the basis of which the alleged repudiation was made is well founded in fact. It is further held by the National Commission that in case it is found as a result of such investigation that the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the contract, the complaint petition before the Forum will have to fail. If, on the other hand, the Forum comes to the conclusion that the charge leveled by the Insurance Company is not substantiated and hence, there was no justification for its purported action repudiating the contract of insurance, the contract of insurance will be treated as subsisting and an inquiry will be conducted into the merits as to whether there was any deficiency in the service on the part of the Insurance Company so as to entitle the complainant to grant of relief under the Act.
In the case in hand, we thoroughly investigated the matter and have come to the conclusion that the repudiation was not at all justified. The ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. being Sister Concern of ICICI Bank, the fraud is perpetrated in order to avoid payment. An ingenious mode is adopted by the Insurance Company. Two cheques presented by the insured are shown to have been dishonoured on account of mismatched signature. The Learned Advocate Mr.Chandarana for the appellant did not touch this aspect when we specifically asked him to make comments. The ICICI Bank, Branch at Kolhapur had absolutely no reason to dishonour the cheques. It had no authority to do so.
The Insurance Company played another mischief. It is a fact that the premium was not paid on 01/10/2006. The insured gave a cheque to the Insurance Company on 19/10/2006. After having received the premium against lapsed policy, the Insurance Company reinstated and revived the lapsed policy. This vital piece of document is suppressed. The Learned Advocate Ms.Bindu Jain brought to our notice the letter dated 19/10/2006 sent by the Insurance Company to the insured. We are inclined to reproduce the text of the said letter :-
“Dear Mr.Shivshankar Pandurang Salunke
Sub : Policy Re-instatement
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to serve you.
We have received your payment towards your premium(s) against the policy number 02931939 which had lapsed as communicated to you earlier.
We are pleased to inform you that your policy has been reinstated and your life cover revived. For your reference, your next premium due date is 01/11/2006.
For any further clarifications, please feel free to contact us at any of the access points mentioned overleaf.
We assure you of our best service at all times.”The lapsed policy was revived and accordingly intimation was given to the insured. The insured was asked to make next payment on 01/11/2006. However, this next payment was rejected on the ground of mismatched signature. Both the cheques issued by the insured were valid. However, both the cheques were rejected fraudulently. In the broadest sense, fraud is “deception made for personal gain”. Fraud can be accomplished with the aid of forged objects. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud involves the act of intentionally making a false representation of a material fact with an intention to deceive other party. This is nothing but theft by deception.
December premium was due on 01/12/2006. No premium was paid on 01/12/2006. 15 days grace period was allowed by virtue of insurance contract. Therefore, the last date for payment of premium was 16/12/2006. The insured ought to have paid premium on or before 16/12/2006. He could have legitimately paid the premium on 16/12/2006. The insured died on 15/12/2006. After 15/12/2006 there is no question of payment of premium. The insurance policy therefore did not lapse. The claim lodged by the widow of the insured ought to have been allowed by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company wrongly repudiated the claim without any valid reason. The Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Asha Goel, 2001 (II) SC 160, has held that in the matter of repudiation of a policy, the Insurance Company should take extreme care and cautions and it should not be dealt with in a mechanical and routine manner.After having scanned the evidence on record and after having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the clear opinion that the action of repudiation of the Insurance Company was bad in law. The final order passed by the District Consumer Forum is proper though some of the reasons are improper. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is without any merits. We propose to impose heavy cost on account of fraud played by the Insurance Company.
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the respondent/org. complainant.
2. Misc. Appl. No. 2070/2007, which is for stay stands disposed of.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.(S. P. Lale) (B.B. Vagyani)
Member President
ICICI Bank Fined 1,00,000 for Causing Mental Agony
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAIFIRST APPEAL NO. 1460 OF 2007 Date of filing : 15/11/2007
@ MISC. APPL. NOS. 1978 & 1979 OF 2007 Date of order : 25/01/2008
IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 491 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PUNEICICI Bank Ltd.
870/1, Suma House,
1st floor, Bhandarkar Institute Road,
Pune – 411 005. … Appellant/org. O.P.
V/s.
Sou.Renu Jitendra Bhandvalkar
R/at Row House No.2, Konark Kinara,
Talera Park, Kalyani Nagar,
Pune – 411 006. … Respondent/org. complainantCorum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble President
Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble MemberPresent: Mr.Parineet Paradkar, Advocate for the appellant.
– : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble PresidentThis appeal filed by org. O.P. is directed against the order dated 15/10/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum Pune. The Forum below allowed the complaint filed by owner of the vehicle and directed the ICICI Bank Ltd. to pay Rs.1 Lakh to the complainant by way of compensation.
We heard Mr.Parineet Paradkar, Advocate for the appellant.
There is delay of 1 day in filing appeal. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is of one day. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Application is allowed and delay is condoned.
We propose to examine the correctness of the order under challenge.
The complainant obtained a car loan of Rs.4 Lakhs from ICICI Bank to purchase an old car. The Bank disbursed the loan amount to the complainant in October 2003. The rate of interest was 12% p.a. The E.M.I. was Rs.10,632/-. The Bank had taken 48 post-dated cheques from the complainant. The Bank had also taken two blank cheques duly signed by the complainant. The complainant had invested Rs.58,000/- in Fixed Deposit. Two cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient bank balance and therefore the vehicle was repossessed on 13/09/2004. The complainant therefore filed consumer complaint. The said complaint was resisted by the Bank by filing written statement. The Bank has taken a stand that the vehicle was repossessed because cheques were dishonoured.
The loan agreement is not placed on record. The Forum below has rightly observed in Para 6 of the judgement that the copy of the loan agreement is not placed on record. However, it is admitted by the Bank that the complainant has invested Rs.58,000/- in Fixed Deposit. The Bank failed to justify the action of repossession of the vehicle. The action of repossession springs from the legal authority. The legal authority would be a contract. However, nothing is placed on record to show that the Bank was allowed to repossess the vehicle in case of failure to pay installments. The Bank could have deducted the installments from the deposit money.
It is well settled position of law that the Financer cannot repossess the vehicle by use of muscle power. The Supreme Court in the case of Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. V/s. Prakash Kaur & Ors., 2007(1) DRTC Page-685 (SC) has made it clear that the Bank has to adopt legal means to repossess the vehicle.
The Bank has already filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant. The said criminal complaint No.19241/2005 is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Four-Five unknown persons had been to the house of complainant, who is lady at the odd hours of night. The gang of 4-5 persons visited the house of the complainant at 10.15 p.m. and represented to the complainant that they were Recovery Agents of the Bank. It is interesting to note that the key of the vehicle was with the complainant. Those 4-5 persons, who represented as Recovery Agents of the Bank prepared a duplicate key of the vehicle and took away the vehicle. The complainant has filed a complaint of theft at Yerawada Police Station, Pune. The Officer-in-charge of Police Station registered Crime No.428/2004 under Section Nos.451, 379, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the so called Recovery Agents of the Bank. A criminal complaint is pending. The complainant was required to move Judicial Magistrate for possession of the vehicle. The custody of vehicle is now restored to the complainant because of order of the Judicial Magistrate. The Criminal Revision filed by ICICI Bank is dismissed by the Session Court. The complainant was required to spend money for getting custody of the vehicle. She suffered mental pain and agony. The Forum therefore awarded Rs.1 Lakh to the complainant by way of compensation. The procedure adopted by the Bank for repossessing the vehicle is bad in law. Taking away the car by duplicate key amounts to theft. The Recovery Agents are not permitted to commit theft on the basis of so called loan agreement.
Copy of loan agreement is not placed on record along with appeal memo. However, during the course of arguments, the Learned Advocate showed us copy of loan agreement. The org. complainant is not before us. The relevant clause with regard to repossession is as under :-
“1. Without prejudice to ICICI Bank’s other rights, if the Borrower/s fails to pay any amount payable by the Borrower/s to ICICI Bank under this Agreement within 15 days of demand or of such amount becoming due and payable or if any event of default occurs or on account of the Borrower/s failure to perform his obligation under this Agreement, ICICI Bank shall be entitled to forthwith take physical possession of the Vehicle(s) either by itself or through its agents and sell or otherwise deal with the Vehicle (s) to enforce ICICI Bank’s security and recover the Borrower/s’s outstandings dues.”
As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the Bank is required to issue 15 days Demand Notice to the owner of the vehicle and in case of failure to comply the Demand Notice, the Bank is allowed to repossess the vehicle. Nothing is placed on record to show that such 15 days Demand Notice was duly served on the complainant. In absence of Demand Notice, the Bank is not at all justified to repossess the vehicle by muscle power. The Bank did not give any opportunity to the borrower to pay the default money. The Bank adopted illegal means for the purpose of repossession of the vehicle. We are therefore not inclined to modify the quantum of compensation. The appeal filed by the appellant/Bank is without any merit. In the result, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Misc. Appl.No.1978/2007 is allowed. Delay is condoned.
2. Appeal stands dismissed summarily.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Misc. Appl.No.1979/2007, which is for stay stands disposed of.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) (B.B. Vagyani)
Member Judicial Member President
this effort of yours is wonderful for the consumers who r not aware of the door to get relief from unfair trade prctices of various institutions.will boost the confidence of the common person