JUDGMENT : N.K.Jain, J.:- Thisappeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 19-7-2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shajapur in C.C.No. 70/05 dismissing appellant's complaint claiming compensation fromrespondent-opposite party, ICICI Bank Ltd., Indore . 2.Appellant-complainant on 16-6-2003 had purchased a Mahindra tractor for Rs . 3 ,51,900 /- after availing loanfrom the respondent-Bank. The total amount of loan was Rs .2 ,91,300 /-. A loan-cum-hypothecation agreement wasexecuted by the parties which inter- alia provided forrepayment of loan in ten half yearly installments of which first two installmentswere of Rs . 32,416/- and Rs .48,624/- respectively, while remaining eight installments were of Rs . 40,520/-each. The installments were payable on 1st ofNovember and 1st of May each year. Last installment was payable on 1-5-2008 . Admittedly the appellant hadmade following payments : - Dates of payment Amount 10-11-2003 Rs . 22,416/- 15-11-2003 Rs.5,500/- 29-11-2003 Rs.4,500/- 9-6-2004 Rs . 25,200/- 22-6-2004 Rs . 17,425/- 12-1-2005 Rs . 40,520/- Total Rs . 1,15,561/- 3.Obviously there had been some defaults/delay in repayment of the aforesaidthree installments. The respondent-Bank repossessed the vehicle on 2-2-2005 and sold the same on 29-5-2005 for a sum of Rs . 1 ,80,101 /-. The grievance ofthe appellant before the District Forum was that notwithstanding some defaultand delay on his part, he was always willing to pay the balance amount of installmentsto the respondent-Bank. The tractor was illegally repossessed by the Bankwithout any prior notice. No notice was also given to him before sale of thevehicle which was sold for throwaway price. He thus, claimed return of histractor with compensation. 4.Respondent-Bank in its reply justified it's action andit was contended that appellant not only defaulted in repayment of loan installments,but also parted with the possession of the tractor and failed to get the sameverified despite repeated letters sent to him. The vehicle was repossessed asper terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Pre-sale notice was also givento the appellant and it is only when he failed to repay the loan that thetractor was auctioned and sold. It was further contended that even after givingcredit of the sale proceeds to the appellant a sum of Rs .1,24,392/- was due from him and for which proceedings are being initiated underthe M.P. Lokdhan Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli Adhiniyam , 1987. 5.Both parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents. It was further contended that even after givingcredit of the sale proceeds to the appellant a sum of Rs .1,24,392/- was due from him and for which proceedings are being initiated underthe M.P. Lokdhan Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli Adhiniyam , 1987. 5.Both parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The Forum belowupheld the contentions of the respondent-Bank and dismissed the complaint, thusgiving rise to this appeal. 6.We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and also gone through theevidentiary material on record. 7.As already stated there is no dispute as to the amount of loan, the installmentsfixed and the payments made by appellant-complainant. True the appellant diddefault or delayed in payment of first three installments. In fact, first andthird installments were paid in full though with some delay. As against second installmentof Rs . 48,624/- the appellant had paid Rs . 42,625/- on 12-1-2005 i.e., with a delay of two months. It is however, significant to note here thatall the remaining eight installments were also of Rs .40,520/- each. It was rather unusual that second installment was fixed for arather unusual high amount Rs . 48,6247-, while thefirst one was of Rs . 32,416/- and the remaining eightwere for Rs . 40,520/- each. Appellant has also placedon record computer generated payment schedule said to have been given to him bythe recovery agent of respondent-Bank wherein the amount of second installmentis shown to be of Rs . 42,624/- not of Rs . 48,624/-. It appears that appellant was misled by thisschedule resulting into shortage of payment by Rs .6000/-. Be that as it may, the facts remains that there was some delay inpayments of first three installments and that the payment was also short by Rs . 6000/-. However it looked unreasonable on the part ofthe respondent to repossess the tractor for such a meager balance amount of Rs . 6000/- and that too without prior notice. Although therespondent has filed on record two notices/letters allegedly sent to appellanton 21-11-2003 and 3-3-2004 requiring him to pay thebalance amount of installments and also get the tractor verified. There ishowever, no evidence of delivery or service of these notices on the appellantwho has denied on oath to have received any such notices. It is furthersignificant to note that in neither of these notices it is disclosed as to whatamount was due from the appellant at the relevant time. There ishowever, no evidence of delivery or service of these notices on the appellantwho has denied on oath to have received any such notices. It is furthersignificant to note that in neither of these notices it is disclosed as to whatamount was due from the appellant at the relevant time. 8.Respondent further claimed that the appellant had in fact parted with thepossession of the tractor and did not get the same verified despite aforesaidletters. As already stated service or delivery of the said letters could not beestablished by the respondent. No document pertaining to the seizure of thetractor could be filed or proved in evidence nor it is indicated as to fromwhose possession the tractor was repossessed. 9.No pre-sale notice seems to have been given either. Respondent could lead noevidence whatsoever to prove that any such pre-sale notice was ever given tothe appellant and served on him. The only notice which was delivered and servedon the appellant was dated 22-12-2005 i.e., after sale of the tractor requiring the appellant to pay a further sum of Rs . 1 ,24,392 /-. No evidencecould also be adduced by the respondent evidencing the procedure adopted forseizure and sale of the tractor. Every such financer is expected to fetch bestpossible price of the hypothecated property and safeguard the interest ofborrower. A tractor purchased for Rs . 3 ,51,900 /- was sold for a meager sum of Rs .1,80,101/-. What was the mode of sale whether any tenders were invited orproclamation of sale was issued, is not clear from the respondent's evidence. The entire process of repossession and sale oftractor was arbitrary rather surreptitious in nature and constituted deficiencyon the part of respondent-financer. 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of ICICI BankLtd. Vs. Prakash Kaur &others, (2007) 2 SCC 711 while recognizing right of financer-banks to repossessthe hypothecated goods in case of default has held : "Inconclusion, we say that we are governed by the rule of law in the country. Therecovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legalmeans. The banks cannot employ goondas to takepossession by force." TheNational Commission in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. Therecovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legalmeans. The banks cannot employ goondas to takepossession by force." TheNational Commission in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi , III (2007) CPJ 161(NC) has held : "Inview of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, where the vehicle is forcefullyseized and sold by the money lender/financier/banker it would be just andproper to award reasonable compensation to the complainant. Reasonable compensationwould depend upon facts of each case." Inthe instant case as already pointed the respondent-Bank did not adhere to anyrecognized procedure while repossessing and selling the tractor in question.The deficiency on the part of respondent-Bank was writ large and theappellant-complainant in our opinion is entitled to an appropriate relief. 11.Now that the tractor has been sold away and the purchaser is not a party beforeus, no order can be made for delivery of tractor to the complainant. However,he needs to be compensated adequately. In our considered view direction forrefund of the amount paid by appellant to respondent-Bank and quashment of the demand dated 22-12-2005 will meet the ends of justice. 12.We accordingly allow the appeal as also the complaint of appellant in part andto the extent indicated above. The demand notice dated 22-12-2005 is quashed and the respondent-Bank isdirected to pay to appellant Rs . 1 ,15,561 /-withinterest @ 9% p.a. from the date of last payment i.e., 12-1-2005 . The respondent shall also bearappellant's cost of both the fora and the same isquantified at Rs . 2000/-.