JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank is also present. 2. Petitioner is the father of the lady Lalita Kumari Yadav, who made an application before the respondent Bank for sanction of loan for purchase of vehicle, a Maruti Wagon R car from the authorized Maruti Dealer, M/s Premsons Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi. She was working in Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F) and had applied for loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 26.7.2012 to the SBI, Personal Branch, Ranchi. The Bank issued an arrangement letter, Annexure-2 in favour of the applicant indicating that they had decided to sanction car loan/overdraft limit of Rs. 3,50,000/- based on the documents submitted by her and information furnished by her on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Apart from the other conditions such as the premium of the rate of interest to be fixed thereupon, Bank had requested for furnishing of security in the nature of hypothecation of the car purchased out of the loan/overdraft amount in favour of the Bank, third party guarantee of the spouse as also pledge of securities listed there under. The vehicle should be kept comprehensively insured in the name of the applicant for the market value or at least 10% above the loan/overdraft amount outstanding, whichever is higher. Other legal expenses and processing charges would also be levied. Clause 12 there of related to disbursement. It provides that loan/overdraft amount will be disbursed direct to the account of the supplier/dealer after execution of the security documents. Loanee shall call on any working day to execute the documents. Loan was also subject to other terms and conditions in connection with the loan/overdraft and as may be prescribed by the Bank from time to time. The duplicate copy of the arrangement letter was requested to be returned to them duly signed by the loanee and guarantor detailed therein within a period of 45 days from the date of the said letter. 3. The dealer made the delivery of the vehicle in favour of the applicant/loanee on 28.7.2012 on a deposit of cash of Rs.85,000/- (Annexure-3) indicating that it is hypothecated to the State Bank of India, which is the Financer of the said vehicle. However, unfortunately the applicant died on 30.7.2012 at around 12.15 hours in respect of which a U.D. Case No. 12/2012 was instituted. However, unfortunately the applicant died on 30.7.2012 at around 12.15 hours in respect of which a U.D. Case No. 12/2012 was instituted. The death certificate is at Annexure-7. Loan of the applicant was sent for claim towards Personal Accident Claim to the S.B.I General Insurance Company Ltd. on 27.8.2012. The claim was for accidental death and as per the documentation provided by the Bank, the date of disbursement of loan was 3.8.2012, which is post death of the insured member. Insurance Company indicated that since the disbursement of the loan is after the death of the loanee, it is not covered under the purview of the policy's terms and conditions. They regretted to consider the claim vide Annexure-8 dated 30.11.2012. Annexure-9 is the statement of account of the deceased from 1.7.2012 to 11.6.2013, which shows that Rs. 3,50,000/- was credited in the account of the loanee on 3.8.2012 as loan disbursement. In the aforesaid factual chronology, petitioner being the father of the deceased Applicant had sought quashing of the seizure of the hypothecated asset by the Respondent Bank dated 11.9.2013 (Annexure-12) issued by the Authorized Officer of S.B.I, Personal Branch, Ranchi, Respondent no.7. It indicates that as per the terms of the sanction, outstanding amount should have been Rs. 2,76, 956/- i.e. less than to or equal to the drawing limit but the account has been overdrawn by Rs.74,829/- plus interest. Father of the present petitioner was required to pay Rs.1,19,458/- plus interest within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. On failure to do so, Bank would instruct their seizure agent/Authorized person to seize assets by public auction/private treaty/inviting quotation or dispose of the same for such price as the bank shall think fit and apply the net sale proceeds. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent Bank is not proper and lawful in the eye of law. The vehicle in question was purchased on the basis of arrangement letter of the respondent Bank, Annexure-2 dated 28.7.2012 to the concerned dealer. The Bank in-spite of the information of the death of the applicant has disbursed the sanctioned amount on 3.8.2012 after her death. As a result of which, the Insurer has regretted repudiation of the personal accident claim. The vehicle in question was purchased on the basis of arrangement letter of the respondent Bank, Annexure-2 dated 28.7.2012 to the concerned dealer. The Bank in-spite of the information of the death of the applicant has disbursed the sanctioned amount on 3.8.2012 after her death. As a result of which, the Insurer has regretted repudiation of the personal accident claim. It is submitted that in the light of the irregular action of the respondent Bank, the loan amount has remained un-repudiated or un-insured at the level of the Insurance Company as the disbursement was done after the death of the applicant. More over the liability of the vehicle would now unnecessarily fall on the legal heirs of the deceased loanee i.e. petitioner Father. This cannot be tenable in the eye of law as well as on facts. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Upon perusal of the relevant material facts as recorded herein above, it is evident that the dealer in question has made delivery of the vehicle on deposit of cash amount of Rs.85,000/- on the part of the applicant Loanee, though the entire consideration amount was not disbursed in favour of the applicant or the dealer in question on the date of delivery i.e. 28.7.2012. The document at Annexure-2 is an arrangement letter issued in favour of the loanee/applicant where it has been clearly indicated that on principle though a decision has been taken to sanction the loan request, but the actual disbursement would take place on furnishing of relevant security and other documents by the loanee/applicant. Liabilities incurred by the applicant on purchase of the vehicle before the actual sanction of loan on 3.8.2012 on mere deposit of Rs.85,000/- with the dealer cannot clothe the Bank of any liability before the loan amount was actually sanctioned and disbursed by the Bank in question. Unfortunately the applicant had died 3 days after the purchase of the vehicle on 30.7.2012 before the actual sanction of the loan amount and its disbursement in her account. In that sense, the loan amount or the amount advanced as loan could not have been insured by the respondent Insurance Company as the loanee had already passed away before the sanction of the loan. The Insurance Company therefore cannot be fastened with the liability to repudiate the claim of loan on these facts. In that sense, the loan amount or the amount advanced as loan could not have been insured by the respondent Insurance Company as the loanee had already passed away before the sanction of the loan. The Insurance Company therefore cannot be fastened with the liability to repudiate the claim of loan on these facts. The respondent Bank is liable to realize the loan advanced from the consumer or legal heirs there of or forfeit the hypothecated asset in order to protect the interest of the Bank where public money is involved. The liability to repay the loan on the part of the loanee or on the part of the legal heir therefore does not abate in such circumstances. 7. In the wake of the aforesaid circumstances, when the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability to repudiate the loan amount, the loan amount advanced by the Bank is to be realized either through repayment or through forfeiture of the hypothecated asset or any other security furnished by the loanee or guarantor. In that event, it is up to the petitioner to repudiate the loan amount by requesting for suitable installments for payment thereof and release of forfeited hypothecated asset i.e. vehicle in question or leave it to the Bank to realize the loan amount by auction or any other means. In the light of what has been discussed herein above and for the reasons recorded, petitioner has not been able to make out any grounds for interference with the impugned action of the respondent Bank. It is up to the petitioner to approach the Respondent Bank with a request to repudiate the loan amount. However on failure to do so, it would be open to the Bank to proceed in accordance with law for realization of the loan amount. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.