Date of Filing:17.03.2008<br /> Date of Order:03.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 3RD DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 716 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Wais Ahmed Shariff<br /> S/o. Mohammed Jamal Shariff<br /> R/at No. 630, 22nd Main Road<br /> 4th T Block, Jayanagar<br /> Bangalore 41 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> ICICI Bank Ltd.,<br /> Auto Loan Dept.,<br /> No. 4/10, Hosur Raod, Bommanahalli<br /> Bangalore 560 086<br /> Represented by its Officer<br /> And Power of Attorney Holder<br /> Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased Tata Indica Car and took a loan from opposite party. The Sanctioned loan was Rs. 3,35,000/-. Opposite party collected the EMI from Citi Bank in the complainant’s account through ECS every month. The complainant has also paid EMI by cash. On 19.02.2008 at 2.00 p.m. suddenly two unknown persons came and snatched the keys in car and they took away the car. Complainant had kept Rs. 50,000/- in the car dashboard. Complainant has given complaint to police. The opposite party demanding payment of balance amount of Rs. 2,48,399/-, opposite party illegally seized the car on 19.02.2008. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to release the vehicle and to pay Rs. 50,000/-. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party and opposite party has put in appearance by the advocate and submitted defence version contesting the case. It is submitted in the defence version that the transaction between the complainant and opposite party is covered by the terms of agreement. On default by the complainant after giving intimation to police the vehicle was taken to possession by following due process of law. Opposite party had also given pre-sale notice to the complainant. Complainant had failed to pay the outstanding dues. Therefore, the vehicle was sold in public auction on 24.03.2008. Therefore, the opposite party has submitted that complaint may be dismissed.<br /> 3. Affidavit and evidence of both parties filed. Arguments heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:-<br /> Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. I have gone through the complaints and defence version filed by the parties. The admitted facts of the complainant himself that there was a balance amount of Rs. 2,48,399/- payable to opposite party. It is also admitted case of the complainant that he has not paid some of the EMIs. The opposite party had issued notice to the complainant before seizing the vehicle. The concerned police were also intimated before taking possession of the vehicle. After seizing the vehicle the opposite party had given notice before putting vehicle to sale. The vehicle in question was sold in public auction and highest bid was accepted. The vehicle was sold to SMT Automobiles on 24.03.2008 for Rs.2,59,000/-. No doubt this forum has passed Interim Order on 4.4.2008 directing the opposite party bank not to put the seized vehicle in auction and bank was also directed to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant after payment of Rs. 36,843/-. But unfortunately, the seized vehicle was sold in public auction on 24.03.2008 i.e., before the passing of the Interim Order. Therefore, the Interim Order passed by this forum became ineffective. The prayer of the complainant that opposite party shall release the vehicle is also ineffective. Since the vehicle has been sold in public auction and the auction amount was credited to the loan account of the complainant, the only remedy now open to complainant is to get the excess amount if any from the opposite party bank after giving set off to the loan account. As regards the theft of Rs. 50,000/- kept in the dashboard of the car, this forum cannot decide anything on this aspect. The complainant has already filed complaint to the police and the police are looking after the said matter. It is for the police to investigate the matter and submit the report. Therefore, this forum cannot interfere in the investigation process of the police. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case and all the documents I am at opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the observation that the opposite party bank shall pay balance amount if any to the complainant after closure of the loan account and to issue loan clearance certificate to the complainant and to return all the original documents to the complainant submitted by the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. Complaint is dismissed. However, the opposite party bank is directed to return the balance amount if any after closing the loan account and to issue loan clearance certificate to the complainant. The opposite party bank is also directed to return all the original documents to the complainant. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 3RD DAY OF JULY 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />