Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 760 (MP)

ICICI Bank Limited v. Abhay Singh Kharari

2009-07-01

NEERJA SINGH, PRAMILA S.KUMAR, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2009
JUDGMENT : S.K. Kulshrcstha , J.: - Thisappeal assails the order dated 18-10-2007 passed by the District ConsumerDisputes Redressal Forum, Dhar in C.C. No. 158/2006. 2.Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 (complainant) submits that respondent No.1 had purchased a motor vehicle Toyota Innova for atotal consideration of Rs . 7 ,76,180 /-whichafter payment of margin money was financed by ICICI Bank, appellant herein. TheEMI was Rs . 13,380/- for 60 months. The accountindicated that a sum of Rs . 6 ,94,590 /-was outstanding. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that cheques given by the respondent No. 1 were dishonoured with the result the Company had to give anotice to the borrower and take possession of the vehicle. After the possessionof the vehicle was taken, the borrower was issued a notice by the appellantBank about sale of the vehicle and the vehicle was sold for Rs .5 ,25,000 /-. 3.The respondent No. 1 has joined issue with the appellant on the question of thevehicle having been taken by force or by consent. While the appellant statesthat the vehicle was taken possession of with the consent of the appellant, therespondent No. 1 states that it was taken by force and without any notice.Learned Counsel for appellant submits that two installments of Rs . 26,160/- were over due. In this view of the matter, therespondent became defaulter. 4.The District Forum has directed payment of full value of the car to therespondent No. 1 by the appellant. However, since the car has already been soldand sale realised Rs . 5 ,25,000 /- and this situation was brought about by therespondent No. 1 himself that he failed to pay a single installment and his cheques were dishonoured . 5.The Bank has claimed total outstanding of Rs . 1 ,89,261 /-. This outstanding relates to the vehicle which theBank itself had sold without intimation to the respondent No. 1 borrower. Itis, even otherwise strange that a vehicle costing Rs .7 ,76,180 /- would fetch only Rs .5,25,000/- in sale. It appears that the Bank has not acted as a prudent personand have sold it for a nominal price of Rs . 5 ,25,000 /-. Under these circumstances, it is the Bank whichis guilty of deficiency in service. Itis, even otherwise strange that a vehicle costing Rs .7 ,76,180 /- would fetch only Rs .5,25,000/- in sale. It appears that the Bank has not acted as a prudent personand have sold it for a nominal price of Rs . 5 ,25,000 /-. Under these circumstances, it is the Bank whichis guilty of deficiency in service. 6.Since the car of the respondent No. 1 has been sold, the respondent No. 1 isnot in a position to get back the car nor the Bank can give the vehicle back to the respondent No. 1. The only solution is monetarycompensation to the respondent No. 1. 7.Accordingly, we direct that the balance amount of Rs .1 ,89,261 /-shall not be recovered by the appellant fromrespondent No. 1-borrower. The order of the District Forum is accordinglymodified and it is directed that the Bank shall not claim Rs .1 ,89,261 /- from the respondent No. 1-borrower. 8.With the above modification, this appeal is disposed of.