1.      Learned counsel for the petitioner present.   Respondent No. 1, Viswanathan K. Nair is absent despite service.

2.      It is prayed that the names of respondents 2 and 3 be deleted.

3.      As prayed, the names of respondents 2 and 3, namely, Managers of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. stand deleted.

4.      The facts of the present case are these.  The complainant purchased a second hand Santro Car bearing registration No. TN 07 L-5429 from one Shri M.T. Ashoklal S/o Thankappan, Memaneparambil, Arpookkara Kara, Arpookkara Village Kottayam Taluk, Kottayam District for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,55,000/-.  Mr. Viswanathan K. Nair, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.75000/- as part payment of the sale

-3-

consideration.  Thereafter, the complainant approached Shri P. Sunil Kumar @ Kannan, the proprietor of Helpline Franchisee of ICICI Bank Car Loan Division and applied for a loan of Rs.1,25,000/-.  The same was sanctioned and the EMI was fixed at Rs.4250/-.  The cheques of EMIs were handed over to opposite party No. 1.  Thereafter, the opposite party released a sum of Rs.44,547/- on one occasion and a sum of Rs.17,000/- on the second occasion.  The complainant received the total amount of Rs.61547/- instead of Rs.1,25,000/-. 

5.      The defence set up by the respondent-ICICI Bank Ltd. is that seller of the car Shri M. T. Ashoklal had a loan pending with the opposite party No. 1/petitioner-Bank at the time of the sale of the car.  The opposite party had agreed to close the vender’s loan from the loan amount of the complainant.  A sum of Rs.76,154/- was adjusted towards the loan account of the vendor.

6.  The District Forum directed the opposite parties to redraw the amortization schedule afresh on the basis of the amount of Rs.61,547/- (Rupees sixty one thousand five hundred and forty seven only) and the complainant shall within one month of the issuance of the said schedule commence to repay the same.  The opposite parties were disentitled to impose any penal interest or any other charge over the period till the said schedule is issued to the complainant.  An amount of Rs.1000/-

-4-

(Rupees one thousand only) is ordered to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant towards costs. 

7.      Aggrieved by this order, the Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd filed an appeal before the State Commission against the complainant and Mr. P Sunil Kumar, respondent No. 2.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 

8.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  The respondent has not turned up despite service.  An amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid to him as litigation charges. 

9.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards a letter written by the complainant Viswanathan K. Nair to the Manager, ICICI Car Loan Kottayam.  The relevant portion of the said letter runs as follows:

                             “Respected Sir,

I purchased a vehicle from Mr. Ashoklal.  This vehicle has a loan in your bank and I request you to please transfer the existing loan of Ashoklal to my account.”

10.    Shri Ashok Lal also gave another letter to the Branch Manager ICICI Bank car Loan Kottayam, which is also reproduced as follows:

“Sir,

-5-

I have a loan from our bank for my vehicle santro T. N. 07 L 5429, and now I sold my vehicle to Mr. Vishwanathan K. Nair, and he also applied a loan for this vehicle from your bank.  Now I request you to have the above said loan from my account from Vishwanathan Nair account.”

11.    It is clear that no liability can be fastened upon the petitioner-ICICI Bank.  Amount was deducted as per the wishes of the vendor and the vendee.  The complainant is debarred and estopped from taking such plea.  Therefore, we set aside the orders of the fora below, accept the revision petition and dismiss the complaint.  No order as to costs.