In a recent concluded case at the Maharashtra Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on 7th march 2013, the Commission dismissed the ICICI Bank’s petition in appeal no. 893/2008 filed by ICICI Bank challenging the order of District Forum of holding ICICI Bank guilty of deficiency of services under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Maharashtra Consumer Commission also heard the appeal petition of the complainant Dharamaji Kisan Gund (Appeal no. 896 of 2008) who challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to him by the District Forum in the said dispute. The matter pertained to taking of possession of the Tractor, trolley by the ICICI Bank in relation to the loan taken by the complainant from the bank for the purchase of the said tractor and trolley. The complainant was paying the instalment but had not paid the first instalment of the loan due to which the bank took over the property (tractor and trolley). The complainant alleged that the tractor was taken forcibly by the bank after the payment of second instalment and had also caused damage to the property during the period of these being held up by bank against the non-payment of the first instalment. The complainant alleged that ICICI bank was guilty of deficiency of services and had taken excess amount than the required amount to be taken for the payment of loan. The bank on the other hand submitted that it was not guilty of the same and had seized the said property in consonance to loan agreement entered between the two. The Maharashtra commission after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case affirmed the finding of the district Forum and held that ICICI Bank was guilty of deficiency of services but felt that the compensation awarded to the complainant was comparatively low and modified the same. The commission observed that seizure of the tractor and trolley was not justifiable and ICICI Bank should not have seized the property upon taking the second instalment in view of not informing to the complainant about the payment of first instalment. The Commission observed that the bank could have recovered the amount of first instalment by imposing delay charges at the time of taking of the second instalment and seizing the property forcibly after accepting second instalment amounted to deficient services on part of ICICI Bank. The commission further observed that as per the agreement, the bank could seize the property on failure to pay the instalment but this could not have been done by force. The Commission referred the case-law relied upon by the bank and observed that the said case-law supports seizure but not forcible seizure. The commission observed that the complainant could not prove the loss caused to the tractor during the time it was held up by the bank for non-payment of the instalment and held that the bank could not be made liable for the compensation but can only be made liable for the loss of income which the complainant could have generated during the time of 3 months when the property was held up by the bank. The commission further observed that proper and reasonable way to work out for the compensation was at rupees 500 per day for the monthly working days of tractors and calculated it tobe 30,000 Rupees. The Commission also modified the order enhancing the compensation awarded to the complainant for mental agony and thereby enhanced the compensation by awarding in respect of loss generated to the complainant and held that seizure even as per the agreement cannot be forcible and seizure after acceptance of second instalment in view of circumstance amounted to deficient services by ICICI Bank.
Skip & continue
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers are not permitted to advertise themselves. The information about the Firm, its Key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members provided under this website is only for informational purposes and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement of any nature whatsoever.
The information provided on this website is for general information only. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.
Communications via this website also do not create an attorney-client relationship. Visitor should always seek appropriate professional advice before acting on the basis of any information contained herein.
