This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 26.3.2013,  passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred as ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.1433/2008,

2.         Brief facts of the caseare that the petitioner granted a loan facility for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for financing a vehicle to the respondent. As per the agreement, the respondent was liable to repay the said loan amount in 60 (sixty) monthly instalments of Rs.6,870/- each commencing from 1.7.2006 till 1.6.2011.  However, the respondent failed to adhere to the terms of the agreement. The respondent failed to pay the monthly instalments regularly.  The petitioner company was finally constrained to send  legal notices to the respondent asking him to adhere to the payment schedule and to pay monthly installments. However, as per the version of the petitioner, the said vehicle/ car bearing registration No.PB-23F-3387 was surrendered in the office of the petitioner company at Patiala by the respondent herein, as he was not in a  position to pay the loan of the petitioner company. The respondent, however, alleged that the vehicle was repossessed by the petitioner.

3.         Aggrieved with the re-possession of the vehicle by the opposite party, the complainant/respondent  filed the consumer complaint no, 270 of 2008 before the District Forum,  which was decided vide its order dated 6.11.2008 as under:

“For the foregoing reasons and discussion we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to release the vehicle of the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.  We also direct the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of the complaint.

4.        Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP/petitioner preferred First Appeal no.1433/2008 before the State Commission,  which decided the appeal vide its order dated 26.3.2013. as under:

“The car was purchased by the respondent on 14.6.2006 and the same was repossessed by the appellants on 20.8.2008, as such, the respondent had used the car for two years and two months. The car is still  in  the possession of the appellants from the date of its re-possession by the appellants and four and half years had already passed after taking the re-possession of the car by the appellants and now the return of the car to the respondent will be against the natural justice as the car will not be in a running condition. So we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified to the extent that the appellants will pay Rs.80,000/- to the respondent as compensation and litigation expenses in total and the respondent will execute the documents regarding the transfer of the car in the name of the appellants. The appellants will not recover any further amount of the loan amount from the respondent. This order will be complied with by the parties within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The appellants will inform the date and time for the compliance of the order in advance to the respondent.

5.          Hence, the revision petition.

6.          Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7.          Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the compliance of the order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the District Forum, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 17.6.2009 as confirmed by order dated 17.6.2009 in Execution Application during the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner with the learned State Commission.  The State Commission has passed the impugned order without considering the fact that the vehicle was already handed over to the complainant. Thus, the order of the State Commission is factually incorrect and is not implementable. The State Commission has further ordered that the appellant/petitioner herein would not recover any further amount from the complainant. This order of the State Commission is not sustainable as loan amount is to be recovered from the loanee. As the vehicle is also with the respondent since 2009, it is not possible to transfer the vehicle in the name of OP as ordered by the State Commission. In this situation, the unpaid loan amount is required to be paid by the respondent.  Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that before the possession of the vehicle was taken, notices dated 3.4.2008, 13.5.2008, 5.6.2008 and 4.8.2008 were sent to the complainant to deposit the outstanding amount and to submit the copy of registration certificate of the vehicle. When the respondent did not pay any heed to these notices, the vehicle was repossessed as per the Hypothecation Agreement. It may be mentioned that at the time of surrendering the aforesaid car, an amount of more than Rs.32,000/- was due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner company. The learned counsel emphasized that the action of repossessing the vehicle was executed as per the provisions of law and according to the contract of hypothecation agreement and thus, no deficiency could be attributed to the petitioner. The learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioner referred the dispute to the sole Arbitrator Shri SwapanKumar Chatterjee for its adjudication in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement and the respondent was duly communicated thereof to participate in the arbitral proceedings. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator after going through the facts of the case and the documents relied upon by the petitioner has passed an award for a sum of Rs.3,39,832/- alngwith interest @ 36% per annum from 1.5.2008 till the date of publication of award and thereafter, 24% per annum till realization with costs in favour of the petitioner company and against the respondent herein.

8.        On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the motor vehicle was purchased in the year 2006 and all the instalments were paid and only one instalment was in default on 1.8.2008 and the vehicle was repossessed. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the notice was issued on 4.8.2008 to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.32,000/-  and the complainant was about to deposit the money but in the meantime, before expiry of the period given in the notice,  the vehicle was forcibly repossessed. It was also pointed out that the vehicle was repossessed on 20.8.2008 and it remained with petitioner for 13 months.  During this time, the complainant could not earn any money for his livelihood and complainant went through harassment and mental agony. The State Commission has passed an order to pay Rs.80,000/- to the complainant which seems reasonable and justified.

9.    I have gone through the record and considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. The District Forum vide its order dated 6.11.2008 ordered the release of vehicle and payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The State Commission in the appeal, however, without taking note of the fact that vehicle was already released by the petitioner in compliance of the order of the District Forum in execution application to the complainant on 17.6.2009, passed the impugned order dated 26.3.2013, wherein it is stated that the vehicle was already with the appellant/petitioner herein. Thus, the order of the State Commission is prima-facie against the facts existing at that time. Further relying on the fact that the vehicle was still with the appellant/petitioner herein, the State Commission has further ordered that the petitioner shall not recover any further amount from the complainant for which there seems to be no justification. If the amount of loan is not fully repaid, the financier has full right to recover the unpaid amount. However, in the present case, the vehicle did not remain with the complainant form 20.8.2008 to 17.6.2009 and during this period, the complainant was not able to earn anything from the vehicle in question and therefore, the complainant deserves some compensation. So far as arbitration award is concerned, it is not the subject matter of the present revision petition and therefore, the parties may deal with this award independently.

10.   Based on the above examination, I find that the order dated 26.3.2013 of the State Commission is not based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. Accordingly, the order dated 26.3.2013 of the State Commission is set aside and the order dated 6.11.2008 of the District Forum is upheld. There shall be no order as to cost.