PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1. Counsel for the petitioner heard on the merits of this case at the time of its admission. This is an indisputable fact that the petitioner is a defaulter and he did not pay three EMIs to the Bank. -1- The service of prior notice was effected upon the petitioner. Notices were produced on the record. The State Commission has mentioned that those notices were available at Page Nos. 73, 74 & 75. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the proof of the notices but his main argument is that those documents were not received by the complainant/petitioner Gurucharan Singh, as the same were sent at the incorrect address. He has also cited an authority reported in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited Versus S. Vijayalaxmi [(2012) I Supreme Court Cases 1] wherein it was held:

the recovery has to be carried out in accordance with law and not by use of force

.

2. We find no force in these arguments. The said authority is not applicable to the present case. In this case, this is an admitted fact that the vehicle was seized in accordance with law after serving the notice upon the petitioner. This is an admitted fact that in the agreement regarding loan, the petitioner had given this very address, where the notices were issued. The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact. He, however, submits that the petitioner had shifted the premises. Subsequently, he explained that no communication was sent to the respondent Bank that the petitioner had shifted to such and such address and the future communications must be sent to the changed address. However, he submits that the respondent Bank was fully aware that the petitioner had shifted from the given premises. Notice sent by the advocate mentions his new address.

3. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Bank was bound to send the notice at address mentioned in the legal notice. They are bound to serve the notice at the address given in the agreement. They should have been informed clearly, specifically & unequivocally that the petitioner had changed the address and further letters be sent to the changed address. A person who has waddled out of the commitments and admittedly is a defaulter hardly deserves any sympathy from this Commission. The revision petition is without force and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- which will be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

4. The Revision petition stands disposed of. ......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER