Aparesh Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank is also present.
(2.) Petitioner is the father of the lady Lalita Kumari Yadav, who made an application before the respondent Bank for sanction of loan for purchase of vehicle, a Maruti Wagon R car from the authorised Maruti Dealer, M/s Premsons Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi. She was working in Central Industrial Security Force(C.I.S.F) and had applied for loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 26.7.2012 to the SBI, Personal Branch, Ranchi. The Bank issued an arrangement letter, Annexure-2 in favour of the applicant indicating that they had decided to sanction car loan/overdraft limit of Rs. 3,50,000/- based on the documents submitted by her and information furnished by her on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Apart from the other conditions such as the premium of the rate of interest to be fixed thereupon, Bank had requested for furnishing of security in the nature of hypothecation of the car purchased out of the loan/overdraft amount in favour of the Bank, third party guarantee of the spouse as also pledge of securities listed there under. The vehicle should be kept comprehensively insured in the name of the applicant for the market value or at least 10% above the loan/overdraft amount outstanding, whichever is higher. Other legal expenses and processing charges would also be levied. Clause 12 there of related to disbursement. It provides that loan/overdraft amount will be disbursed direct to the account of the supplier/dealer after execution of the security documents. Loanee shall call on any working day to execute the documents. Loan was also subject to other terms and conditions in connection with the loan/overdraft and as may be prescribed by the Bank from time to time. The duplicate copy of the arrangement letter was requested to be returned to them duly signed by the loanee and guarantor detailed therein within a period of 45 days from the date of the said letter.
(3.) The dealer made the delivery of the vehicle in favour of the applicant/loanee on 28.7.2012 on a deposit of cash of Rs. 85,000/- (Annexure-3) indicating that it is hypothecated to the State Bank of India, which is the Financer of the said vehicle. However, unfortunately the applicant died on 30.7.2012 at around 12.15 hours in respect of which a U.D. Case No. 12/2012 was instituted . The death certificate is at Annexure-7. Loan of the applicant was sent for claim towards Personal Accident Claim to the S.B.I General Insurance Company Ltd. on 27.8.2012. The claim was for accidental death and as per the documentation provided by the Bank, the date of disbursement of loan was 3.8.2012, which is post death of the insured member. Insurance Company indicated that since the disbursement of the loan is after the death of the loanee, it is not covered under the purview of the policy's terms and conditions. They regretted to consider the claim vide Annexure-8 dated 30.11.2012. Annexure-9 is the statement of account of the deceased from 1.7.2012 to 11.6.2013, which shows that Rs. 3,50,000/- was credited in the account of the loanee on 3.8.2012 as loan disbursement. In the aforesaid factual chronology, petitioner being the father of the deceased Applicant had sought quashing of the seizure of the hypothecated asset by the Respondent Bank dated 11.9.2013 (Annexure-12) issued by the Authorised Officer of S.B.I, Personal Branch, Ranchi, Respondent no. 7. It indicates that as per the terms of the sanction, outstanding amount should have been Rs. 2,76,956/- i.e. less than to or equal to the drawing limit but the account has been overdrawn by Rs. 74,829/- plus interest. Father of the present petitioner was required to pay Rs. 1,19,458/- plus interest within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. On failure to do so, Bank would instruct their seizure agent/Authorised person to seize assets by public auction/private treaty/inviting quotation or dispose of the same for such price as the bank shall think fit and apply the net sale proceeds.;