CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO.935 OF 2008 Date of filing: 02/07/2008

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.123/2007 Date of order : 17/06/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, MUMBAI SUBURBAN

@ MISC.APPLICATION NO.1281/2008



Mrs.Saroj H.Rao

R/o.R.no.11, Utkarsh society

Ganesh nagar, Panch Kutir

Pawai, Mumbai 400 076 ………..Appellant/org.complainant

v/s.

The Manager

ICICI Bank

R.P.G.Tower, Opp.Kohinoor hotel

J.B.Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road

Andheri(E), Mumbai 400 059 ………Respondent/org.O.P.



Corum: Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Mrs..S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present : Mr.Baldev Rajput-Advocate for the appellant

Appellant in person.

Mr.V.Mannadiar-Advocate for Respondent.

O R D E R



Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

1. There is delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. Therefore misc. application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is of few days. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Misc. application for condonation of delay is allowed.

2. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 21/4/2008 passed in consumer compliant no.123/2007 Mrs.Saroj H.Rao v/s. Manager, ICICI Bank passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short). Appellant/org. complainant had taken a loan to purchase a car from respondent/org.O.P.-ICICI Bank. Because of the default, respondent had taken in their possession said car as per the Agreement and thereafter sold it. Respondent/bank also made claim for the amount which falls short to satisfy the loan debt, after adjusting sale proceeds of the car. Thereafter this consumer complaint is filed interalia claiming the relief against the said recovery. This consumer complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, original complainant preferred this appeal.

3. We heard Mr.Baldev Rajput-Advocate for the appellant. Appellant in person. Mr.V.Mannadiar-Advocate for Respondent.

4. Perused the record. It is brought to our notice that consequent to the default committed by the complainant in repaying the loan amount, complainant herself surrendered back the car, which she had given to the third party and executed a surrender letter in her own hand writing, copy thereof is on record. Consequent to the said surrender letter and as per the agreed terms of the agreement, respondent bank sold the vehicle. Said vehicle was sold before complainant issued a letter dated 18/11/2006, whereby she requested bank to allow her to remain present at the time of auction of the car. No question arises to comply with said request since the vehicle was already sold. No deficiency on the part of respondent bank could be inferred much less any arbitrary action on the part of respondent bank to sell the vehicle. After selling the vehicle and adjusting the price recovered against the arrears of loan amount, respondent bank has raised the demand for balance of the loan amount. There cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of respondent bank when arrears of the loan amount are claimed from the appellant/complainant. Under the circumstances, Forum below rightly held that there being no deficiency in service established, complaint was liable to be dismissed. We find no reason to take a departure from the view taken by the Learned Forum below and, thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, pass the following order:-

ORDER

1. Misc.application for condonation of delay is allowed.

2. Appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/-.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member