This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Mukesh Hyundai against the order dated 11.03.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA/1140/2013.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 had purchased a second hand car from Mukesh Hyundai, petitioner for Rs.3,20,000/- and after using the same for about one year he was not satisfied with the car and wanted to exchange it with some other old car.  The petitioner agreed to take back the old car at a valuation of Rs.2,43,000/-.  The respondent No.1 had taken a car loan from the respondent No.2 and at that time Rs.2,49,000/- was the outstanding amount in the loan account with respondent No.2.  Accordingly, the respondent No.1 paid Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner so that the petitioner can close the loan account.  It was also agreed that the petitioner will give another car at a price of Rs.3,83,486/- and the price was to be paid by the respondent no.1 for which he again tried to get the loan from respondent No.2.  The name of the respondent No.1 is Ankur Kumar Roy, whereas there was another Ankur Roy who also had a loan account with respondent No.2.  By mistake the petitioner asked respondent No.2 to close the loan account of Ankur Roy. Due to this mistake, the respondent No.2 did not close the loan account of respondent No.1 and started harassing respondent No.1 by sending the recovery agents to his house, whereas the respondent No.1 had already deposited amount with the petitioner. In a way he had already paid total due amount of loan to the petitioner to send to respondent No.2.  Respondent No.1 then filed a consumer complaint before the District forum bearing No.247/2013.  The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint and ordered a compensation of Rs.40,000/- to be paid to the respondent No.1 by the petitioner.  Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the complainant/respondent No.1 preferred appeal before the State Commission being FA No.1140/2013.  The State Commission enhanced the compensation from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/- vide order dated 11.03.2016.

3.      Hence the present revision petition.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.1, who is present in person.  Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the State Commission has enhanced the compensation without any rhyme or reason and in the body of the judgment, the State Commission has not given any reasoning for awarding compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.  It was argued by the learned counsel that finally the mistake has been rectified by the respondent No.2 bank and the loan account of respondent No.1/complainant has been closed by respondent No.2.  Thus, the complainant has not suffered any financial loss.  The order of the State Commission is totally arbitrary and is not supported by any reasoning. In a way, it is a non-speaking order.  It has been requested to set aside the order of the State Commission.

5.      The respondent no.1/complainant who is present in person stated that he has suffered a lot due to mistake of the petitioner.  The recovery agents of respondent No.2 started coming to his house and abused him in front of his family. He tried to contact the petitioner, however, no responsible person answered his call or came to attend to him.  He further stated that he has come all the way from Kolkata.  He had come eight times to attend the proceedings.  He is facing litigation for the last eight years and has spent a lot of money while coming to attend court proceedings and by paying the fee of the Advocate before the fora below.  He further stated that even after the closure of the loan account, the respondent No.2 has not given “NOC” to the complainant. He further stated that the compensation granted by the District Forum is vary meagre and the State Commission has rightly enhanced it to Rs.4,50,000/-, which is the compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further stated that due to non-supply of the exchanged car, the complainant remained without a car for about eight months and has spent lot of money in hiring other vehicles for his use.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 stated that the loan account of the respondent No.1 has already been closed and the mistake has been rectified.  The respondent No.2 has also written to cibil for rectification and the same has been done.  The respondent No.1 has not approached the respondent No.2 bank for ‘NOC’.  There is no deficiency on the part of the respondent No.2 and both the fora below have already passed the order for compensation to be paid to the complainant.    

8.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and have examined the material on record. The District Forum has clearly given the reasons for awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/-, but the State Commission has not given any reason for enhancing the compensation to more than 10 times.  The complaint was filed by respondent No.1 and even the appeal was also filed by respondent No.1, therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered litigation expenses due to somebody else. The revision has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party Mukesh Hyundai and therefore, the respondent No.1 has to come from Kolkata to attend the proceedings before his Commission.  Respondent No.1 must have spent some amount in pursuing his complaint and appeal before the fora below.  As the loan account of respondent No.1 has already been closed, it means that the amount of valuation as agreed between the parties for his car has already been paid to the respondent No.2.  It is true that for 4-5 months, the respondent No.2 may have harassed the respondent No.1 for paying the loan amount, which was already paid by the complainant to the petitioner. 

9.      It may also be true that the complainant had to hire the vehicle for his use for about eight months when the exchanged car was not supplied by the petitioner.  It is also true that as no amount was paid by the complainant or respondent No.2 to the petitioner, the petitioner could not have given the car to the respondent No.1/complainant.  In these circumstances and keeping in view the reasons given by the District Forum for awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- as well as the fact that the State Commission enhanced the compensation more than 10 times without any reason, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is arbitrary and  is on a very high side.  In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) is reasonable and sufficient.

10.    Based on the above discussion, revision petition is partly allowed and the order dated 11.03.2016 of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the petitioner will pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of the order of the State Commission i.e. 11.03.2016 till actual payment instead of amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as ordered by the State Commission.