Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Manager, Icici Bank Ltd vs Prakash Kaur & Ors on 26 February, 2007
10. Vide impugned Order dated 18.07.2017, learned State
Commission concurred with the finding of the learned District Forum that
the possession of the vehicle was taken by the OP without issuing of
requisite mandatory notice. Further, placing reliance upon Manager
ICICI Bank Limited v. Prakash Kaur & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1349 and <
Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited s. S. Vijaya Laxmi, III (2007) CPJ-
161 (NC), it was observed that OPs failed to comply with clause 5.2 of
the contractual obligations and re-possession of the vehicle was in
forceful manner without issuing any notice.
Deep Hire Purchase Ltd vs Khem Singh & Ors. on 14 November, 2011
Learned District Forum further took into consideration that the
vehicle was financed in April, 2012 for Rs.6,80,000/- and it is a matter of
common knowledge that the banks or finance companies finance the
vehicle at a lesser price than the market value of the vehicle and in
absence of original purchase invoice, the market value of the vehicle of
the model 2007 was taken at Rs.8,00,000/-. Further, since the vehicle
was sold in auction by OP on 10.11.2014, the depreciation value was
RP No. 464/2018 Page 7 of 14
i
calculated taking depreciation for the first two years at @ 10% and 5%
for the further period of six months from the date of purchase, following
the ratio laid down in Deep Hire Purchase Ltd. v. Khem Singh & Co.,
2012 (3) CLT 198. Accordingly, after deducting the depreciated value of
Rs.1,84,400/- from the purchase value of Rs.8,00,000/-, the fair market
price of the vehicle was assessed as Rs.6,15,600/- in the year 2014.
Since the vehicle was sold by OP merely for Rs.3,70,000/- despite the
fair market price assessed at Rs.6,15,600/-, the complainant was held
entitled for compensation for loss caused due to sale of vehicle at much
less value than the market price. Further, after deducting the balance
loan amount of Rs.2,61,824/- from Rs.6,15,600/-, an amount of
Rs.3,53,776/- was directed to be returned as compensation for loss.
Apart from above, opposite party was directed to pay compensation of
Rs.25,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- within one
month of the passing of the Order, failing which the opposite party was
held liable to payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the entire
awarded amount after the expiry of period of one month till the date of
payment.
1