Complainant/petitioner Amarjeet Singh took a loan from ICICI Bank Ltd., Amritsar (the respondent herein) by hypothecating his Maruti Zen LX EN : II Car Model 2001 bearing Chassis No.594593, Engine No.156545 in December 2001.  It was stated in the complaint that he had been paying the instalments regularly to the respondent every month.  That the last instalment of Rs.7022/- was paid on 10.9.2002.  Only one instalment was due towards him till November 2002.  It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner visited the office of the respondent for depositing the instalment but the respondent forcibly took possession of the vehicle from him on 23.11.2002.  That the petitioner approached the office of the respondent for release of the vehicle, which was not done, aggrieved against which, the petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum.

          Respondent, on being served, filed its reply.  According to the respondent, the petitioner, after taking loan for purchase of the vehicle, did not pay instalments regularly.  That he was served with a Notice to pay the outstanding instalments but the petitioner neither replied to the Notice nor made the payment.  It was denied that the petitioner had approached the respondent to pay the instalments and the respondent had taken forcible possession of the vehicle.  It was submitted that despite Notice dated 7.11.2002 served upon the petitioner, petitioner failed to make the payment and he himself surrendered the vehicle to the respondent.  Another letter dated 25.11.2002 was issued to the petitioner asking him to pay the balance amount, which he failed to pay.  It was prayed that the complaint filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

          The District Forum, after appreciating the evidence on record, vide its order dated 25.6.2003, allowed the complaint in the following terms :

“The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.500/-.  Opposite party is directed to return the car in question to the complainant.  It is further directed that the complainant shall pay the amount of instalments due till 23.11.2002 at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle from the opposite party.  It is further directed that the complainant will not be liable to pay the principal amount of instalment and interest till the delivery of the vehicle to him.  Schedule for payment of the instalments shall be redrawn by the opposite party accordingly and the complainant shall not be liable to pay interest for the period the vehicle remained with the opposite party.”

          Aggrieved by this, respondent filed Appeal No.990/2003 before the State Commission.  No stay was granted.

          Since no stay was granted, petitioner filed Execution Application No.223/2004 before the District Forum in which the respondent bank took the objection that since there was no stay, the car was sold and the amount appropriated against the outstanding amount due from the petitioner.  Since Appeal No.990/2003 filed by the respondent against the order passed in the complaint was still pending, Execution Application was adjourned sine die to await the decision of the National Commission in the Revision Petition filed against the order declining the stay passed by the State Commission.  After the passing of the order by the National Commission, the Execution Application was taken up for hearing and the District Forum disposed of the same vide its order dated 23.8.2005 by passing the following order :

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that present objections filed by the counsel objector are not only frivolous and without any substance but also not legally maintainable.  These objections, such as, are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/- to be paid by Sh.Vishal Mehta who has made statement before this Forum and this amount would be deposited in the District Legal Aid Fund, Amritsar.  Since notices have already been sent to the officers of the respondents bank for making compliance of the orders of the District Consumer Forum, Amritsar within the meaning of the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and since compliance has not been made despite express undertaking given by Sh.Vishal Mehta an officer of the respondent bank, we are apt to conclude that respondent bank and its officers are flouting the orders of the District Consumer Forum and also that of Hon’ble National Commission with blatant impugnity.  We, therefore, order that arrest warrants against Sh.Vishal Mehta, Collection Manager be issued and he be produced before the District Consumer Forum on or before 12.9.2005.  Term of his imprisonment would be specified on the day when he appears before the forum.  These warrants are ordered to be entrusted to the S.H.O., Civil Lines Police Station, Amritsar for due execution.”

          Against the order passed in Execution Application dated 23.8.2005, the petitioner as well as the respondent filed cross appeals.  Petitioner’s appeal was numbered as 1124/2005 and that of the respondent was numbered as 1125/2005. 

The State Commission has disposed of Appeal No.990/2003 filed against the order of the District Forum dated 25.6.2003 in complaint and the Appeals No.1124 and 1125/2005 filed by the petitioner and the respondent respectively against the order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the District Forum in the Execution Application by a common order.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed Appeal No.990/2003 and the order of the District Forum dated 25.6.2003 passed in the complaint has been set aside and the complaint has been ordered to be dismissed.  In view of the order passed in Appeal No.990/2003, Appeal No.1124/2005 filed by the petitioner against the execution order was dismissed and the order passed in Execution Application was set aside.

          State Commission, in its order, has set aside the order of the District Forum passed in the complaint by observing thus :

“We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.  The present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Commission in Appeal No.1462 of 2004 titled as ‘ICICI Bank Limited vs. Amrit Pal Singh’ decided on 4.5.2005 wherein while interpreting the Clause (G) of the Hire-Purchase Agreement i.e. Rights and Remedies of ICICI, it was held by this Commission that if an amount becomes due and payable or there is a default on the part of the borrower to fulfil his obligation, no notice of demand is required to be given and on the occurrence of default or the money becoming due which is not paid, the vehicle can be taken in possession by the Bank.  The present case is also governed by the same terms and conditions of the agreement as were discussed in Appeal No.1462 of 2004.  Further, Hon’ble Apex Court also in case ‘Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. vs. Jagmander Singh reported as 2006 PLR page 601’ has held that if agreement permits the financer to take possession of the financed vehicle, there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken.  In the present case, there was default in payment of two instalments and the bank was within its rights to re-possess the vehicle.  In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that District Forum has wrongly allowed the complaint filed by Shri Amarjit Singh.  We hereby set aside the impugned order dated 25.6.2003.”

          Admittedly, petitioner was a defaulter. There was a clause in the agreement that in case of default, the respondent would be entitled to repossess the vehicle.  Plea that the respondent had taken forcible possession cannot be accepted.  Respondent had served a Notice dated 7.11.2002 on the petitioner calling upon him to make payment of the outstanding amount failing which the vehicle would be repossessed.  Since the petitioner failed to make the payment, the respondent took possession of the vehicle.

          It has repeatedly been held by this Commission that the financers can take possession of the financed vehicle, in case the loanee commits default in making the payment on the due date.

          Supreme Court of India in Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. vs. Jagmander Singh – 2006 PLR 601 has held that if agreement permits the financer to take possession of the financed vehicle, there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken.

          For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.