ICICI Bank Ltd. vs SANDEEP KUMAR

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Maruti van financed by the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 2,08,000 under a hire-purchase scheme. It is also not in dispute that the complainant was irregular in paying the EMIs, as a result of which the petitioner re-possessed the vehicle and this vehicle was finally auctioned at a price of Rs. 1,49,502. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint to the extent that the petitioner was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent/complainant. Aggrieved by this order petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The basic facts are not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased on 18.6.2002 and it was re-possessed by the petitioner on 28.10.2003, as a sequel to irregular payments of EMIs on the part of the respondent/complainant. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was sold on 13.12.2005 for Rs. 1,49,502. As per the State Commission the depreciated value of the vehicle should have been Rs. 2,10,000 and after catering for the amount already paid plus the margin money paid by the complainant at the time of purchase of vehicle, grant of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation by the District Forum was found to be in order by the State Commission.

There is no dispute that the vehicle was with the respondent/complainant for a period of 16 months. The question before us is as to what would be depreciated price of the vehicle, in order to do equity between the parties? Neither taking the value of the vehicle arrived at by the State Commission nor for that matter by the petitioner on a lower side and in these circumstances, if we adopt the depreciation @ 20% allowed under the Income Tax Act, the value of the vehicle would have been Rs. 1,92,000 after a use of about 16 months. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already recovered Rs. 1,49,502 from the auction of the vehicle as also recovered Rs. 85,000 in the form of EMIs from the complainant as also keeping in view the fact that the margin money of Rs. 25,000 was paid by the complainant, the complainant, in our view, shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000.

THE order of the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission stands modified accordingly. In compliance of our order dated 31.7.2006, the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 50,000 (50% of the amount awarded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission) before the State Commission. The respondent/complainant shall be entitled to withdraw this amount along with accrued interest from the State Commission, where it has been kept in the form of FDR. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. R.P. disposed of.