IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.185/05 Dated this, the 10th day of June 2008. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER K.A.Abdul Jaleel, S/o Mohammed Kunhi, Karippody Villa, Kottikulam, : Complainant Pallikkara, Bekal Po. (A.M.Abdul Jamal,Adv. Kasaragod) The Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd, Kannur Branch. : Opposite party (Rajesh.V.Nair, Adv. Thalassery) ORDER SMT.P.RAMADEVI: MEMBER: The complainant K.N.Abdul Jaleel approached the Forum for return of his vehicle from opposite party alleging that the opposite party illegally re-possessed his vehicle. The facts of the case is that the complainant had purchased a brand new Chervolet Optra - ,bearing Reg.No.KL14F/1199 as per the loan agreement(No.LAKNR 00003829078) entered with ICICI Bank, Kannur Branch. The value of the vehicle was Rs.9,00,000/- and the loan availed was Rs.7,30,000/-. As per the terms of agreement he has to pay Rs.17,395/-each in 48 monthly instalments from 7/6/2005 onwards. Towards the collection of instalmenta through Bank the opposite party had obtained 48 signed cheque leaves and out of which 3 cheques encashed and the remaining 45 cheque leaves are with the opposite party. On 28/11/2005 the complainant parked the vehicle at M.G.Road Kasaragod , the agents of opposite party forcefully took the car and they told the complainant to contact the opposite party. On 29/11/05 he received a telegram from the opposite party informing that they have re-possessed the vehicle and requested to contact the opposite party. The complainant contacted personally and the Manager ICICI Bank Calicut Branch have agreed to return the vehicle but postponed the same on one pretext or other. Ultimately on 15/12/2005 the complainant was served with the notice requesting him to pay the entire amount of loan it was also stated that otherwise they will sell the vehicle. Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief. 2. The opposite party, ICICI Bank served with notice and appeared through their counsel and filed version. The opposite party denied all the allegations made by the complainant. The opposite party admits the loan transaction between them and the complainant. According to the opposite party as per the terms of agreement, the complainant has to pay Rs.8,34,960/- in 48 monthly instalment of Rs.17395/- each. The complainant is irregular in paying the instalments . The opposite party had informed the default through letters and reminders. Inspite of the repeated reminders the complainant failed to pay the amount due and the opposite party came to know from reliable source that the complainant going to transfer the vehicle at Karnataka. Hence the vehicle was repossessed by the opposite party as per the terms of the agreement and at the time taking possession of the vehicle there was a due of Rs.52406/-. . According to them, the possession of the vehicle was taken from Kannur and the entire transaction is from Kannur. Hence this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. 3. The evidence in this case consists of the affidavit of complainant and Exts.A1 to A7 marked. The opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence but Exts.B 1 & B2 were marked. 4. The first point is to be considered in this case is whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Admittedly, the loan transaction is entered into between the parties is at Kannur. But the ICICI Bank is having its branch at Kasaragod. Hence the Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. 5. The next question raised is whether the repossession of the vehicle by the opposite party is legal or not? Here the case of the complainant is that on 28/11/05 when the complainant parked the vehicle at M.G.Road, Kasaragod the opposite party took possession of the vehicle forcibly. The complainant has not stated in his complaint whether he committed default in making payment of the loan amount. The opposite party specifically contended that the complainant since he was irregular in paying the monthly instalments and the opposite party had informed and reminded the complainant several times to make the payment. Eventhough the complainant denied the above fact in his affidavit but it is evident from the records that complainant committed default in making payment of monthly instalments. The justification made by the opposite party regarding the forceful repossession of the vehicle is that as per the hypothecation agreement, the opposite party can repossess the vehicle when the loanee is irregular in making the payment of loan amount. Here it is true that the complainant is a defaulter of loan amount to opposite party. As per the terms of vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement entered into between the complainant and opposite party when the borrower fails to pay any amount payable by the borrower to ICICI bank within 15 days of demand, the ICICI bank is entitled to forthwith take physical possession of the vehicle either by itself or by its agent and sell or otherwise deal with the vehicle to enforce ICICI bank’s security and recover the borrowers outstanding dues. 6. Here the ICICI bank acted upon the above terms of the agreement. But it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Das Sharma and others 2008 CTJ 677 (Supreme Court (CP) that the bank and other financial institutions should note that we live in a civilized society and are governed by the rule of law. They should make recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles only through legal means” (From the above observation it is very clear that the repossession of the vehicle can be done only through lawful means. Here the ICICI bank had repossessed the vehicle forcibly without any recourse to law prevailing in the country. Hence the repossession is illegal. 7. During the course of arguments the complainant’s counsel submitted that since the vehicle was in possession of the opposite party for more than three years the complainant do not want to get back the vehicle as prayed for and he is prayed for an order of compensation. 8. After considering the above facts the forum is found that the act of the opposite party is illegal and also the complainant is a chronic defaulter of repayment of the loan amount. The value of the vehicle is Rs.9, 00,000/- apart from the loan of Rs.7; 30,000/- availed from the ICICI bank the complainant paid Rs.1, 70,000/- for the vehicle. The complainant used the vehicle about 6 ½ months. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in repayment of the installments of loan. Thereby the opposite party also sustained loss. Considering the depreciation and the loss sustained by the opposite party due to the non-payment of the loan installments the complainant is not entitled to get the margin money he paid towards the purchase of vehicle. Hence we allow the complaint in part and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 52185/- being the three installments of loan amount paid by the complainant to ICICI bank. Both parties will have to bear their respective costs. The time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1-Copy of RC book A2-Copy of insurance policy A3-Copy of brochure A4-Copy of schedule A5-copy of telegram A6- 27/10/05- letter from OP A7- Postal cover of OP B1- Accounts statement B2-Hypothecation agreement original Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva / /Forwarded by Order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
