Vinod Kumar M vs Bank Ombudsman
2022 Latest Caselaw 2741 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 6558 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            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

RESPONDENTS:

    1       BANK OMBUDSMAN
            RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.
    2       MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD.
            MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT -
            680567, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
    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
    4       RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
            LISSIE JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM NORTH, ERNAKULAM -
            682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.
OTHER PRESENT:

            SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   11.03.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.6558/2022

                                     2



                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                     --------------------------------
                     W.P.(C).No.6558 of 2022
              ----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 11th day of March, 2022


                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1st 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.

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.

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

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

2. 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 2nd 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) W.P.(C).No.6558/2022

SCC 711]. Hence this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even

though notice was issued to the respondents, there is no

appearance.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is ready to

settle the matter with the 2 nd respondent and the 2nd

respondent is not releasing the vehicle and it is already

transferred to some others.

5. 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 2nd respondent, the petitioner is free to

approach the 2nd respondent with a representation and this

Court is sure that the 2nd respondent will do the needful in

accordance to law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of allowing the

petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent with appropriate

representation.

Sd/-

                                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                             JUDGE
 W.P.(C).No.6558/2022





                  APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6558/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1        TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
                  PARTICULARS RELATING TO VEHICLE N
                  O.KA-51AG-0498.
Exhibit P2        TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
                  04.02.2022 SENT BY THE PETITIONER
                  BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3        TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE

MATTER OF ICICI BANK LTD. VS. PRAKASH KAUR REPORTED IN 2007 (2) SCC 711.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.02.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.