Karnataka

StateCommission

A/4103/2010

The Regional Office - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.B.Naveen Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Jai patil

05 Jul 2021

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/4103/2010
( Date of Filing : 30 Sep 2010 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 20/07/2010 in Case No. CC/131/2010 of District Dharwad)
 
1. The Regional Office
ICICI Bank Ltd., No.4/10, Mytree Centre,Hosur Road, Bommanahalli, Bangalore 560 068, Rep. by its Regional Manager. .
2. ICICI Bank Ltd.,
RAPG Building, Ground Floor, Deshpande Nagar, Hubli 29, Rep. by its Branch Manager. .
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. S.B.Naveen Kumar
S/o.S.B.H.Boraiah, aged about 30 years, Residing at 202, 3rd cross, Kurubarahalli, West of Chord Road,bengaluru 560 079. .
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 05 Jul 2021
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

 

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

 

APPEAL NO. 4103/2010

1.

The Regional Office,

ICICI Bank Limited,

No.4/10, Mytree Centre,

Hosur Road, Bommanahalli,

Bangalore 560 068,

Rep. by its Regional Manager.

 

 

……Appellant/s

2.

ICICI Bank Limited,

RAPG Building, Ground Floor, Deshpande Nagar,

Hubli – 29,

Rep. by its Branch Manager.

 

(By Sri Jai Patil)

 

 

V/s

Sri S.B. Naveen Kumar,

S/o Sri S.B.H. Boraiah,

Aged about 30 years,

R/at No.202, 3rd Cross,

Kurubarahalli, West of

Chord Road,

Bengaluru 560 079.

 

(By Sri Raju Bhat)

 

…Respondent/s

 

ORDER

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The appellants/Opposite Parties has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.20.07.2010 passed in CC.No.131/2010 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad which directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation along with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.

2.      The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;

The complainant had availed a loan to the tune of Rs.14,19,000/- for purchase of JCB and after availing the loan, he purchased the JCB by paying Rs.18,92,000/-.  At the time of availing the loan, the complainant has agreed to pay EMIs regularly without fail, but, the complainant had not regularly repaid the EMIs.  For the default, the appellant forced to seize the vehicle and subsequently sold in public auction.  Aggrieved by the said, the complainant preferred a complaint alleged deficiency in service before the District Commission and the District Commission without considering the terms and conditions of hypothecation agreement have directed the appellant to pay the compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for not sold the vehicle under due process of law.

3.      Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties before this Commission.  Heard the arguments of both parties.

4.      On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and the documents before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is in default in payment of the EMIs towards the loan provided by the appellant for purchase of the JCB.  Having no other option, the Opposite Parties have seized the vehicle and forced to sell the vehicle for recovery of the outstanding due from the complainant.  The complainant during his evidence before the District Commission had admitted that he was unable to pay the installments due to ill health which caused due to accident, but, not explained before the District Commission whether the JCB was working or not during his treatment.  The most essential aspect between the loanee and loaner is that the payment of EMI should be regular irrespective of illness of the loanee.  The complainant has not shown any interest to recover the vehicle by paying the EMIs.  Accordingly, the appellant has sold the vehicle for recovery of the loan.  But, the District Commission come to the conclusion that the appellant has not followed the rules and regulations for sale of JCB that cannot be accepted because on going through the documents produced by both the parties, the appellants have issued due notice and also issued the sale notice to the complainant before public auction.  The complainant would have paid the loan amount and outstanding due to stop the public auction of the JCB, but, he did not.  Instead of that he approached the civil court and obtained injunction which will not serve the purpose.  Hence, the defaulter cannot be considered as a sufferer and the District Commission made an error in awarding compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for sale of the JCB without considering the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement.  As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant/s under proper acknowledgement.

Forward free copies to both parties.

 

Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                          JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

KCS*

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.