PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2009 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 705/2007, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. [the Opposite Party in the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the District Forum)] has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent/complainant against the order dated 15.02.2007 passed by the District Forum in CC No. 361 of 2005, whereby the complaint was dismissed. The State Commission allowed the appeal and reversed the finding of dismissal and partly allowed the complaint with a direction to the petitioner herein to return the repossessed truck to the respondent/complainant or if it was not feasible to do so, to pay the value thereof to the respondent/complainant. Hence, this petition. 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. 3. Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner Bank would assail the impugned order as wholly illegal and unsustainable in eyes of law and not being based on correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, least the evidence and material brought on record. He even pointed out that the relief granted to the respondent/complainant by the State Commission is far more excessive than the claim made by the respondent/complainant in the complaint as the respondent/complainant had not sought the return of the truck or value thereof. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/complainant supports the order passed by the State Commission. 4. We enquired from the counsel for the petitioner Bank whether the truck repossessed by the petitioner Bank is available or has been disposed of by the petitioner Bank. Mr. Seth confirms that the truck has already been sold after its repossession for a consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- only. There is a dispute as to how much amount was actually paid by the respondent/complainant towards instalments, as, according to him, he has paid a sum of Rs.3,48,000/- through various receipts, details of which are mentioned in the affidavit filed by the respondent. On the other hand, the statement filed by the petitioner Bank along with the affidavit of the concerned officer shows that a sum of Rs.1,66,000/- only had been deposited by the respondent/complainant. It is alleged that some of the receipts referred to are forged. Whatever may be the case, we find that the respondent/complainant has satisfactorily proved on record that he has paid a sum exceeding Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner Bank towards the due instalments. 5. Since the truck has already been auctioned, it cannot be restored to the respondent/complainant. Therefore, we have to modulate the relief taking into account all the facts and circumstances, in particular that the respondent/complainant has used the truck for gainful purposes for a period of more than one year before its repossession. We find that he must have been benefited monetarily to an extent. Therefore, it would be wholly unjustified to call upon the petitioner Bank to refund the entire amount received by them from the respondent/complainant towards the instalments, which, in any case, were payable by the respondent/complainant. Moreover, we are informed that the respondent/complainant had spent Rs.2,00,000/- on building the body on the chassis of the truck and fixing other fitments required for running the truck. 6. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, we partly allow the revision petition and set aside and modify the impugned order and direct the petitioner Bank to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the respondent/complainant. The amount shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today, failing which it shall carry interest @ 12% per annum. If the amount is not paid, it will be open to the respondent/complainant to execute the order. |
