O R D E R (ORAL) Challenge in this Revision Petition, by Tata Finance Ltd., is to the order dated 24.3.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1221/2006. By the impugned order, while affirming the finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Varanasi (for short “the District Forum”) in its order dated 7.4.2006, in Case No.247/2003, to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in repossessing the vehicle, viz., Tata Sumo car, and disposing it off without prior notice to the Respondent/Complainant, the State Commission has reduced the amount of compensation; the value of the vehicle, as also the interest, as awarded by the District Forum and has directed the Petitioner to pay to the Respondent a sum of ₹2,50,000/- towards the value of the said vehicle; ₹50,000/- as compensation for the mental and financial harassment caused to him on account of the aforesaid act and ₹5,000/- towards costs, along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the value of the vehicle, from the date of fixing of the Complaint till payment of the final amount. Both the Forums below have arrived at the afore-noted concurrent conclusion, inter alia, observing that the Petitioner herein had failed to adduce any evidence to show that due notice was given to the Respondent/Complainant, who had raised a loan of ₹2,40,000/- to purchase the vehicle in question. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents on record, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit. Though it is stressed by the learned Counsel that due intimation before seizure and sale of the vehicle was given to the Respondent, but we do not find even a bald averment in the Revision Petition in this behalf. In the entire body of the Petition, it is nowhere stated as to when notices before repossession and sale, as contemplated in law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of its decisions, was issued to the Respondent. As a matter of fact, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner candidly admits that there is no such assertion in the Petition. In light of the afore-stated factual scenario, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. |
