JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the parties present.  Arguments heard.

2.      The petitioner/complainant, Surya Narayan Das entered into hypothecation agreement with Magma Leasing Ltd. on 1.12.2002.  The petitioner    availed    financial    assistance   of Rs.3,50,000/-  from the respondent/opposite party.  The said loan was to be paid in installments as per schedule in the hypothecation agreement.  The complainant made payment in the sum of Rs.2,45,500/- by 31.7.2004.  The allegation made by the complainant is that his truck was taken away on 18.11.2004 by respondent without any notice.  The complainant approached the respondent and paid Rs.25,000/- to get the repossession of the vehicle.  Despite the deposit of the said amount, the said vehicle was not given back to him. 

2.      On the other hand, the opposite party demanded total outstanding amount in the sum of Rs.2,28,594/- as on 8.2.2005.  He was asked to pay the said amount within 7 days otherwise his vehicle would be sold.  According to the opposite party, due notice was given to the petitioner.  The complainant is a chronic defaulter and defaulted in making the payment of the installments.  The vehicle had already sold because the complainant could not pay EMIs.

3.      The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneshwar with the prayer that the amount of Rs.2,28,594/- be waived out/strike down and the vehicle in question be released in his favour and he should be granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.  The District Forum directed the complainant to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.1,25,800/- in consecutive five equal monthly installments after receiving back the seized vehicle and the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs of litigation.  The opposite party was directed not to demand any interest on the amount for the period from the date of repossession till the date of release of the vehicle. 

4.      Aggrieved by that order, the opposite party approached the State Commission.  The State Commission set aside the impugned judgment and dismissed the complaint.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that petitioner was not served notice before hand.  The respondent/opposite party has filed on record of the District Forum the notice dated 28.6.2004 which clearly specifically and unequivocally mentions that a sum of Rs.2,74,327/- was pending against him and the complainant was called upon to pay the said amount within seven days.  We have requisitioned the file from the District Forum and have perused the same.  The complainant was further threatened that if the said amount was not paid, the opposite party reserved the right to initiate legal action against the complainant for recovery of outstanding amount from him.  Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that this notice was received by the complainant and pursuant to that notice, the amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited.  However, it does not show that the notice stood complied with.  This is a partial compliance of the notice.  The learned counsel submitted that the complainant had further paid Rs.15,000/-.  That, too can’t be said to be the full compliance of demand made in the notice.  It was argued that the demand made by the opposite party is excessive.  The counsel for the petitioner could not utter a whisper, word or syllable to show that the demand made by the opposite party is incorrect or inflated one.  He could not point out any flaw in the statement of account.  He could not file his own statement of account to refute the allegation against the complainant.

6.      The second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner should have been issued a pre-sale notice.  Since the notice was issued and the complainant did not comply with the same, the notice itself mentions that in case the money was not paid within seven days, the vehicle would be sold.  It is clear-cut notice for the sale as well. 

It is stated that the place of sale was not informed. There is no evidence that the complainant approached the petitioner within seven days to know where the auction was going to be held.  It is clear that the petitioner waddled out of the commitments. He is a chronic defaulter and as such deserves no sympathy from this Commission.

          The revision petition has no force.  Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.