N.K. Jain, President—Heard.

By the order impugned the Forum below has directed the appellant-opposite-party ICICI Bank Ltd. to pay to respondent-complainant Rs. 25,000 inclusive of cost of litigation.

2. It was a case where on account of one single default on the part of complainant in repayment of instalment of loan the appellant-Bank has repossessed the vehicle a two wheeler and sold the same. Two things are clearly borne out from the evidence on record; one that no prior demand notice was served on the respondent for payment of the defaulted amount before seizure of the vehicle and two, that the vehicle was re-possessed forcibly through some person who was neither an employee of the appellant -Bank nor any licensed agent. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur & Ors.1 has held that “while abolition of the system (seizure of vehicles through some private agency without the intervention of court/tribunal) is not the answer but effective control over agency by the respective bank is essential.” (The words in the brackets are ours). The Apex Court while taking note of the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of Ind