State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager,Icici Bank Ltd vs Pradeep Singh Gill on 10 June, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK REVISION PETITION NO.18 OF 2008 From an order dated 27.02.2008 and 13.08.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nabarangpur in C.D. Misc. Case No.01 of 2008, arising out of C.C. No.4 of 2008 1. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Plot No.195, Janpath, Kharvel Nagar, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar. 2. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Berhampur Branch, Uma Mahal, 1st Floor, Berhampur, Dist- Ganjam. Petitioners. -Versus- Pradeep Singh Gill, S/o. Late S.S. Gill, At- Main Road, Gadabaguda Sahi, P.O/P.S/Dist- Nabarangpur-764059. Opposite Party. For the Petitioners : M/s. R. Roy & Assoc. For the Opposite Party : M/s. A. Das & Assoc. PRESENT : THE HONBLE SMT. BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, PRESIDENT IN-CHARGE. O R D E R
DATE: -
10TH JUNE, 2008 The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 of Misc. Case No.01 of 2008, arising out of C.C. Case No.04 of 2008 have come up with this revision challenging the orders dated 27.02.2008 of the District Forum, Nawarangpur in the said Misc. Case, directing opposite party No.1 to release the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant after receipt of two instalment dues.
2. We have heard the learned counsels appearing from both sides and perused the materials available in the case record.
3. It is the admitted case of both parties that availing loan facilities from the opposite parties / petitioners rupees 14,34,359/- for a bus and rupees 10,009/- for body building, the complainant purchased a bus. It was agreed between them in writing that the complainant would repay the loan dues on forty-seven monthly instalments, each instalment being rupees 25,881/-.
It is also the admitted case of both parties that on 25.02.2008, the opposite parties have seized said bus due to non-payment of five instalments out of twenty-four instalments by the date the vehicle was seized. After seizure was made on 25.02.2008, on filing of the aforesaid C.C. Case and Misc. Case on 27.02.2008 by the complainant, the District Forum passed the aforesaid orders in ex-parte directing opposite party No.1 to release the vehicle only after receipt of two E.M.I. dues out of the five outstanding E.M.I. dues as on the date of seizure. According to the opposite parties, complainant and his brother are rich and influential person of the locality who have defaulted payment towards earlier loan account and were threatening the worker of the opposite parties demand being made to clear up the dues. The complainant is a regular defaulter of E.M.I. dues and the moment he would get the vehicle released in his favour, he would usurp the loan taken from the I.C.I.C.I. Bank. Moreover, the complainant is not a consumer and the case is not maintainable.
Moreover, as complainant has violated the term of contract / agreement, the I.C.I.C.I. Bank is competent to seize said vehicle. But, without giving opposite parties, a chance of filing show-cause and chance of hearing as the District Forum has directed to release the vehicle only receiving two instalment dues out of five, the I.C.I.C.I. Bank has been prejudiced.
4. On the other hand, complainant claims that being an unemployed youth, he had purchased said bus and was doing business to earn his livelihood. He was paying the dues on instalment basis regularly. But due to non-issuance of permit for the period from March, 2007 to August, 2007, he could not earn through said bus, for which he defaulted payment on instalment basis. Thereafter he is paying regularly. Inspite of this, without giving prior notice, opposite parties having seized his vehicle, there is possibility of selling of the vehicle by opposite parties and unless the vehicle is released, he will not be in a position to pay towards E.M.Is.
The bus would also be improductive unless it runs.
5. Admittedly, out of twenty-four instalment dues, complainant had only paid towards nineteen instalments when the vehicle was seized on 25.02.2008. Thus deficiency on the part of the complainant being apparent, I.C.I.C.I. Bank has not committed any irregularity in seizing the vehicle in view of the terms and conditions of repayment of the E.M.I. dues as per the agreement between the parties. Of course, complainant alleges that without giving prior notice, opposite parties have seized said vehicle. It is a matter to be adjudicated when the case would be taken up for final hearing.
But in the circumstance after two days of seizure of the vehicle, as the District Forum has directed opposite parties to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant receiving only two E.M.Is out of five outstanding E.M.Is without assigning any reason while making such order and without giving a chance of show cause to the opposite parties, the opposite parties have definitely been prejudiced. As per the agreement, when complainant has violated the terms and conditions in respect to payment of E.M.I. dues in absence of any urgency which complainant could not justify, the District Forum should not have directed opposite parties to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant on receipt of two instalment dues only without giving opposite parties a chance of show-cause and hearing. To our information, opposite parties have not yet released the vehicle in favour of the complainant and the complainant having initiated execution proceeding as per E.A. No.13 of 2008 to give effect to the impugned ex-parte order, N.B.W. has been issued against the opposite parties. Of course, vide order No.04 dated 15.05.2008, this Commission has stayed operation of the impugned order dated 27.02.2008 and directed to stop arrest of the opposite parties on the strength of warrant issued against them.
6. Therefore, for better interest of justice and equity, before directing opposite parties to release the vehicle in any terms and conditions in respect to payment of outstanding E.M.Is, opposite parties should be given a chance of hearing. So, we quash the impugned ex-parte orders dated 27.02.2008 and the proceeding initiated vide E.A. No.13 of 2008 of the District Forum, Nowarangpur, remand the case to the District Forum, Nowarangpur to take up the hearing of Misc. Case No.01 of 2008 afresh after giving chance of show cause to the opposite parties and to dispose of the misc. case on merit without any prejudice to our observation in respect to factual aspect made above. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum to take necessary instruction in this respect within fifteen days from today.