Allowed

Vinod Kumar M. v. Bank Ombudsman

Kerala HC11 Mar 2022WP(C)/6558/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order in a writ petition sought a mandate to instruct the respondent financier to regularize a loan account and return a forcibly seized vehicle. The court held that its jurisdiction to issue directions was limited, noting the petitioner was ready to settle. The petition was disposed of by allowing the petitioner to approach the respondent financier directly with a representation

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by allowing the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent with an appropriate representation regarding the loan account regularization.

Vinod Kumar M. Vs Bank Ombudsman — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6558 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

VINOD KUMAR M.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN VAYALIL, RESIDING AT KAKKODE,
KATTIPOYIL, NEELEWARAM, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT - 671314.
BY ADVS.
G.HARIHARAN
PRAVEEN.H.
K.S.SMITHA
V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 BANK OMBUDSMAN

¶8

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

¶9

2 MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD. MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680567, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, BANGALORE CENTRAL, BENGALURU CENTRAL, BTM 4TH STAGE, 5TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, DEVARACHIKKANA HALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560076

¶11

4 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA LISSIE JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM NORTH, ERNAKULAM - 682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C).No.6558/2022

¶16

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

W.P.(C).No.6558 of 2022

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶22

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1^st respondent to consider and to take follow up action on Exhibit.P5 complaint made by the petitioner seeking the benefit of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court of India vide Exhibit.P3 judgment without any further delay.

¶23

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 2^nd respondent to regularize the loan account of the petitioner mentioned in Exhibit.P4 notice by permitting him to pay the defaulted arrears in 6 equal monthly installments along with the regular installments of the loan account relating to the vehicle mentioned in Exhibit.P1.

¶24

iii. To pass such orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice. (SIC)

¶25

W.P.(C).No.6558/2022

¶26

¶27

Petitioner is the registered owner of a 2016 Model Ashok Leyland heavy goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-51/AG-0498, which was purchased after availing finance from the 2^nd respondent from its Kannur Branch. A sum of Rs.12,60,000/- was availed from the 2^nd respondent during April, 2021 and the loan amount was repayable in 60 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.33,250/- per month and it is the case of the petitioner that he paid 8 instalments towards the repayment of loan referred above. On account of the default in repayment of two instalments for the month of January and February, the vehicle was forcibly taken possession on 29.01.2022 by the 2^nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the henchmen of the financiers seized the vehicle forcibly. Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint before the City Police Chief, Bengaluru and according to the petitioner, the matter is pending before the Police authorities at Bengaluru. As on the date of seizure of the vehicle, i.e. on 29.01.2022, it is the case of the petitioner that there was a default of only two instaments and even then, the vehicle was seized forcibly and it violates the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur [2007 (2)

¶28

W.P.(C).No.6558/2022

¶29

¶30

SCC 711] . Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even

¶32

though notice was issued to the respondents, there is no appearance.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is ready to settle the matter with the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent is not releasing the vehicle and it is already transferred to some others.

¶34

Whatever may be the contention of the petitioner, the jurisdiction of this Court to issue directions in these types of cases is very limited. If the petitioner is ready to settle the matter with the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner is free to approach the 2^nd respondent with a representation and this Court is sure that the 2^nd respondent will do the needful in accordance to law.

¶35

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent with appropriate representation.

¶36

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C).No.6558/2022

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6558/2022

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
PARTICULARS RELATING TO VEHICLE N
O.KA-51AG-0498.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
04.02.2022 SENT BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE
MATTER OF ICICI BANK LTD. VS. PRAKASH
KAUR REPORTED IN 2007 (2) SCC 711.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
31.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
06.02.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Vinod Kumar M. v. Bank Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar M. v. Bank Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chalayyam Travels & Transporters, Vs Deependra Singh

Yyyy Vs Union of India

M/S Saroj Diagnostic Laboratory, Vs State of Kerala

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Additional District Magistrate

Kaikara Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

Muhammedubaise K Vs Union of India