Date   : 20.02.2013

Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       This appeal is directed against the order passed by Dist.Forum,Parbhani in C.C.No.79/2005 on 14.9.2006 by which said complaint has been partly allowed.

2.       The case of complainant in brief is that he purchased a tractor by obtaining loan from respondent No.2 State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch Jintur on 13.2.2004.  He had taken that tractor to respondent No.1 for servicing on 11.3.2004. At that time respondent No.1 demanded Rs.40,000/- for getting sanctioned loan from respondent No.2 and refused to give back the said tractor without said payment. Therefore original complainant Aref Khan filed complaint before Dist.Forum below against respondent No.1 & 2. During the pendancy of that complaint, original complainant Aref Khan died and hence his two legal representatives were brought on record. As per interim order passed by Dist.Forum below in that complaint, the possession of the tractor was restored to the complainant on 1.9.2005. Complainant thereafter amended the complaint and sought compensation of Rs.5,21,676/- from both the opponents as described in the said amended complaint.

3.       Opponents resisted the claim by filing the written version. It is the case of respondent/opponent No.1 in brief that on 11.3.2004 original complainant had brought his tractor to it for servicing and that after servicing was done, said complainant did not take back the said tractor because some amount of respondent No.2 Bank was due from him. It also submitted that as the tractor was not taken away by the original complainant himself, it is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

4.       Opponent No.2 in it`s written version submitted that it granted loan to the  complainant and out of that loan of Rs.1 lakh was kept in fixed deposit with it as per request of complainant and that remaining loan amount of Rs.1,35,000/- was paid for purchasing tractor.  It submitted that it has provided no deficiency in service to the complainant and therefore it is not liable to pay any compensation. 

5.       Dist.Forum below after considering evidence brought on record and hearing advocates of both the parties did not believe the case of respondent No.1 that complainant himself did not take tractor after it`s servicing was done by it.  It observed that respondent No.1 did not give back the possession of the tractor to the complainant with view of making recovery of the amount due from complainant and it had no right to do so. It therefore directed respondent/opponent No.1 to pay to the complainant compensation  of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 11% p.a. from 11.3.2004 till it`s realization towards illegal detection of tractor of complainant from 11.3.2004 to 1.9.2005.  It also directed opponent NO.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the complaint, within one month.

6.       Original complainant aggrieved by the said order preferred this appeal.  It is submitted by Adv.Shri.R.S.Gangakhedkar appearing for appellant  that Dist.Forum below has not properly considered the evidence brought on record and erroneously awarded meager compensation  to the complainant.  It is further submitted that there is no basis for granting compensation  of Rs.20,000/- only when tractor was detained  by respondent No.1 without any reason for such a long period of 20 months. He has pointed out averment made in complaint showing loss of Rs.5,21,676/- sustained by appellant towards the said illegal act of detention of tractor.  He therefore submitted that said compensation may be granted.

7.       None appeared for respondents when appeal was called for final hearing. Adv.Shri.S.N.Welankar filed V.P. on 30.8.2011 for respondent No.1 and Adv.Shri.D.N.Deshpande filed V.P. for respondent No.2 on 10.1.2011 on record.  As they remained absent at the time of final hearing we proceeded to decide appeal on merit. We find that Dist.Forum below has rightly disbelieved the case of respondent No.1 that appellant  did not take tractor for non-payment of dues of the loan amount. Dist.Forum has properly considered the evidence to come to the conclusion that respondent No.1 illegally detained the tractor of appellant  from 11.3.2004 to 1.9.2005 and possession of that tractor was restored to the original complainant/appellant only after interim order was passed by Dist.Forum during pendancy of complaint.  There was no reason to respondent No.1 to detain that tractor.  Hence original complainant/appellant  is entitled to claim compensation  from respondent No.1.

8.       Dist.Forum below assessed the compensation  of Rs.20,000/- only without any basis.  We find that original complainant/appellant  claimed compensation  of Rs.250/- per day towards loss of income of the tractor. The tractor was detained illegally by respondent No.1 for 530 days. Considering long period of detention compensation  of Rs.20,000/- granted by Dist.Forum appears to be very meager. It was new tractor purchased by original complainant  on 13.2.2004 for huge price and it was illegally detained by respondent No.1 on 11.3.2004.  In our view the said tractor could have earned income of at least Rs.200/- per day excluding expenses required for and maintenance and running of that tractor.  In the absence of any other evidence we hold that complainants/appellants  are entitled to compensation  of Rs.1,06,000/-.  Complainants/appellants  are not entitled for compensation  claimed by them on account of loss of rent of tractor, loss of agriculture income and interest due on the loan amount of that tractor as we are granting compensation  @ Rs.200/- per day to the tractor towards loss sustained by complainants due to illegal detention of that tractor. Hence we hold that appeal deserves to be partly allowed.  

                                                 O   R    D    E     R

1.                 Appeal is partly allowed as under.

2.                 It is directed that original opponent No.1/respondent No.1 herein shall pay to the original complainant/appellant  compensation  of Rs.1,06,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 11.3.2004 till it`s realization.  Direction given under Clause No.3 about payment of compensation  of Rs.5000/- toward mental agony and Rs.2000/- towards cost of complaint to the complainant/appellant  is hereby maintained.

3.                 No order as to cost of appeal.

4.                 Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Pronounced on 20.02.2013.