HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

3/03.02.2010.

Heard Mr. Anjan Dutta, the Ld. Advocate along with Mr. Bodhisatta Dutta, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant – O.P. No. 1, Mr. Rajdeep Biswas, the Ld. Advocate for O.P. Nos. 2 & 3, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Goutam Sinha, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainants – Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.  Mr. Goutam Sinha files Vokalatnama.  It appears that Forum has considered facts and law in respect of the subject transfer and ultimately came to the finding of fault on the part of the O.Ps and entitlement of the Complainant to relief.  But while passing the order the direction has been given to the O.P. No. 1 to the Complainants the advance payment amounting to Rs.1,51,805/- made by the Petitioner for purchasing the vehicle, Rs.1,68,950/- paid by Petitioner as installments, Rs. 35,000/- for insurance and Rs. 10,000/- as road tax and cost of Rs. 2,000/- as also compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 

Mr. Dutta points out from the judgement of the Forum impugned herein it is apparent that the responsibility of the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 (present Respondent Nos. 3 & 4) have been identified in the judgment but ultimately direction has been given against O.P. No. 1 – Appellant for the entire payment.  We have taken into consideration the contention of the Complainants in the complaint itself as also the stand taken by the respective O.Ps in their counter Affidavit filed in the Forum below.  In the counter Affidavit O.P. No. 1 the allegation of taking possession of the vehicle and its selling has been denied in paragraphs 11 & 13 thereof.  The O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 (the present Respondent Nos. 3 & 4) have been stated in their counter Affidavit in paragraph 6 as follows :

“That in respect of statement made in paragraph 6 it submitted that it is submitted that the Complainant failed and neglected to pay the installments due as per the aforesaid agreement for which a notice dated 14.11.2005 was sent to the Complainant by our Advocates La Nexus Associates to pay the amount due within 14 days from the receipts of the notice otherwise they handover the possession of the vehicle, but in spite of the said notice received by the Complainant they did not comply with the said notice. As on the date of repossession there was 6 installments due. After the repossession of the vehicle the Complainant never contact with the O.P. No. 2 & 3 to take back the vehicle or pay the overdues and having no other alternatives the O.P. No. 2 & 3 sold the said vehicle in auction to recover the loss but after the sale of the said vehicle the Complainant is still liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,09,516/- (Rupees One Lac Nine Thousand Five Hundred Sixteen) only on 20.07.06”.

Therefore, in view of the finding of the Forum in respect of which no irregularity has been shown before us by any of the parties excepting aforesaid aspect we find the impugned order requires a correction only as regards fixing responsibility for payment.  Quantum directed by the Forum to be paid to the Complainant has not been shown as wrong in any respect.  Therefore, we modify the impugned judgement giving direction as follows :

The complaint dated 11.07.2006 of the Complainants are allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 2,000/- only.  The O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 are directed to pay the Complainants the advance payment amounting to Rs. 1,51,805/- made by the Petitioners for purchasing the vehicle, total amount of 20 (twenty) installments of Rs. 1,68,950/- paid by the Petitioners, for insurance a lump sum amount of Rs. 35,000/- and Road Tax Rs. 10,000/- only for such forcible and illegally sized the vehicle and also pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- only for such harassment and mental agony within 45 days from the date of this order and in default, a penal interest @ 10% per annum shall be levied upon the unpaid amount till realization.  The appeal is thus allowed.  Therefore, no order as to cost.