ICICI Bank has been directed by a consumer court to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to a customer and return his Indica car forcibly repossessed by its employees in violation of Supreme Court's guidelines.
Hitting out at the bank, the West Delhi District Consumer Forum president J P Sharma said: "The conduct of the bank in taking forcible possession of car without intervention of the civil court was illegal in view of what has been observed by the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Commission."
Awarding a compensation of Rs 50,000 to Ajmer Singh, a resident of Tilak Nagar, the forum held the bank guilty of deficiency in service for illegal taking away his car while it was parked outside his residence on July 29, 2006.
"We direct the bank to return Singh's car on payment of EMIs due till date," he said.
"The bank shall have to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000, including cost, to the complainant for the harassment caused to him," the forum, also comprising S M Mazumdar and Krishna Gupta, said.
Singh, who had taken a loan of Rs 1.50 lakh (Rs 150,000) from ICICI Bank for buying the car and deposited post-dated cheques for its repayment, had dragged the bank to the forum seeking a compensation over the illegal repossession of his vehicle.
He alleged the bank violated the Supreme Court's guidelines by repossessing his financed vehicle, without giving him a notice.
Singh further alleged that the bank refused to release his Indica car even on the payment of the due amount.
Opposing Singh's contention, the bank referred the terms and conditions of the loan agreement which empowered it to repossess the car, after due notice, on default.
The bank claimed it informed the complainant to clear the outstanding dues, but despite that the he failed to update his account and, thereafter, the loan facility was recalled after giving a notice to the complainant.
Singh had agreed to pay 36 EMIs for the Rs 1.50 lakh loan for his car. Each EMI was for Rs 4,140.
During the forum proceedings, Singh had deposited a pay order in favour of the bank as a cover for two EMIs which he had failed to pay in July and August 2006.
