This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Complainant, against the order dated 12.05.2016 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.72 of 2016.  The said Appeal was filed by the Allahabad Bank, Opposite Party No.2 in the original Complaint, against the order dated

-2-

11.03.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan (for short “the District Forum”) in EA No.2 of 2016. 

2.       Brief facts of the case are that while determining the dispute between the parties, this Commission vide order dated 13.04.2015 in Revision Petition No.3870 of 2014 issued the following directions:

“Consequently, I am of the considered view that here is contributory negligence on the part of both of them.  It is, therefore, orders that both the respondents 1 and 3 will pay a sum of ₹9,83,250/- to the complainants No.1 and 2 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 20.01.2012 till the date of realization.  The liability of both the parties is limit upto 50% only.  I also modify the order of the State Commission and impose costs of ₹30,000/- each regarding compensation, harassment, which be paid to the complainants within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realization.  The Bank is allowed to adjust the loan amount from the above said amount.  If the amount stands already paid, in that event the entire amount would be paid to the complainants.”    

3.       After passing of the said final order by this Commission, Execution Petition No.2 of 2016 was filed by the Petitioner before the District Forum.  As per the order of this Commission, the Respondents had to pay 50% each of the decreed amount.  However, the contention of the Petitioner was that the Respondent No.1 had deducted a sum of ₹3,78,696/- from the amount decreed in his favour and payable by the Respondent.  He has submitted that the loan amount, which had been taken, stood fully paid to the Respondent and which fact is clear from the letter issued by the Respondent on 21.06.2014, acknowledging the payment of full loan amount by the Petitioner and subsequently the Hire Purchase Agreement was also terminated and the

-3-

vehicle was declared free from any encumbrance.  It is submitted that despite the fact that the entire loan amount stood paid even before the order of this Commission, still the Respondent had deducted the stated amount illegally.  It is submitted that the State Commission in the impugned order has committed patent illegality and the order is perverse as the same is against the admitted facts and the documents on record.

4.       Learned Counsel for the Respondent argues that they did issue the Certificate dated 21.06.2014 showing the repayment of the full loan amount against the vehicle No.HP 12D 3196 and also had terminated the Hire Purchase Agreement but the same had been issued under OTS Scheme and when they learnt that the Petitioner was pursuing his Complaint, they had terminated the OTS. 

5.       I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.  Order of this Commission clearly states that the Respondent No.1 is liable to pay 50% of the sum of ₹9,83,250/- along with interest @ 9% p.a.  The Bank, however, was also liable to adjust the loan amount from the said amount if the loan amount did not stand already paid.  In this case, from the letter dated 21.06.2014 it is apparent that the loan amount stood repaid on 21.06.2014, i.e. before the order of this Commission dated 13.04.2015.  Also the Hire Purchase Agreement was terminated by the Respondent.  Both the said letters are reproduced as under:

Letter dated 21.06.2014

“It is certified that Vehicle No.HP 12D 3196, whose owner is Late Heera Chand S/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Vill Nandpur PO

-4-

Lodhimajra Tehsil Baddi Distt. Solan (H.P.) was financed by our Bank.  The owner of the said vehicle has now repaid the full loan amount to us and now nothing is outstanding against the said vehicle.  The vehicle stands free from Allahabad Bank, Baddi.  Endorsement made by Registering Authority Nalagarh Distt. Solan (H.P.) regarding Hypothecation may be removed/cancelled from the RC of the above vehicle.”

Notice of Termination of an Agreement of Hire Purchase/Lease/Hypothecation

“We hereby declare that the agreement of hire/purchase/lease/hypothecation entered into between us has been trained.  We therefore request that note endorsed in the Certificate of Registration of vehicle No.HP 12D 3196 in respect of said Approxemont between us, we cancelled.

6.       These documents conclusively show that the loan amount stood duly paid.  The Respondent no.1 had, therefore, illegally deducted ₹3,78,696/- which they are liable to pay in terms of the decree against them.  The impugned order, therefore, suffers from illegality as the same is against the documents on record.  The impugned order is set aside and the Respondent No.1 is directed to make the balance payment along with interest as directed by this Commission vide its order dated 13.04.2015 within four weeks from today.

7.       The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.