Dis

The petitioner/complainant Bishan Dutt Sharma has filed this Revision Petition No. 2365 2366 of 2013, against the impugned order dated 01.05.2013, passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 235/2007, ishan Dutt Sharma versus Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limitedand FA No. 350/2007, CICI Bank Limited versus Bishan Datt Sharma which were filed against the order dated 14.06.2007, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital, partly allowing the consumer complaint no. 147/2005, filed by the present petitioner. Vide impugned order, the appeal filed by petitioner/complainant was dismissed, but the appeal filed by the OP ICICI Bank was partly allowed. This revision petition no. 2365-2366/2013 has been filed in the shape of second appeal, but since there is no provision for second appeal in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is being heard as revision petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant got a truck financed from the OP Bank and took loan of `4,30,000/- for the purpose. The repayment was to be done in monthly instalments of `14,681/- upto June 2006. The petitioner deposited instalments regularly till 1.11.2004, but could not deposit the next four instalments for December 2004 to March 2004. The OP Bank repossessed the vehicle in March 2005. The petitioner paid a sum of `60,000/- in cash to the Bank in April 2005 and also deposited a cheque of `23,000/- and paid another sum of `14,681/- through banker cheque in June 2005. The vehicle was again repossessed by the Bank in July 2005. The petitioner, vide his letter dated 16.07.2005, asked the Bank to supply statement of account. On 19.07.2005, further sum of `2,94,750/- was deposited with the Bank and the vehicle was released. The complainant alleged that the Bank had charged excess amount of `43,756/- and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank, he filed the consumer complaint in question. The District Forum, vide their order dated 14.06.2007, partially accepted the consumer complaint and ordered the OP to pay a sum of `28,918/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. and `10,000/- for mental harassment and `1,500/- as cost of litigation. Two appeals were filed against this order, one by the complainant and the other by the OP Bank. Vide impugned order, the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed, but the appeal filed by the Bank was partly accepted and the Bank was directed to pay a sum of `28,918/- alongwith interest @7% p.a. and `1,500/- as cost of litigation. In this way, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum by deleting the payment of `10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and reduced the rate of interest to be paid on the amount of `28,918/- from 9% p.a. to 7% p.a. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made. 3. The case was fixed for hearing today on 05.12.2003. The petitioner did not appear in person before us, but sent a letter dated 14.10.2013, which was received in the Commission on 21.10.2013. It has been stated in the said letter that the petitioner was about 90 years old and was unable to come before the Commission for hearing. He was also not in a position to afford the services of a lawyer and requested that the present petition may be decided after considering the contents of the revision petition and a copy of the decision may be sent to him. 4. We have carefully examined the contents of the petition and the other material placed on record. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner had deposited cash amount of `60,000/- and a cheque worth `23,000/- to the Bank in April 2005. However, the Bank had not given him any receipt for the amount deposited, but again took control of the vehicle in July 2005. They returned the cash amount of `60,000/-, cheque worth `23,000/- and Banker cheque worth `14,681/- to him in July 2005 and demanded an amount of `2,94,750/- for releasing the vehicle. The petitioner arranged the said amount of `2,94,750/- from his relatives on loan and paid it to the Bank, following which the vehicle was released. The petitioner has given calculations in the body of the petition, saying that the Bank had charged an extra amount of `43,756/- from him. Further, the Bank had twice taken the vehicle in their control, due to which the petitioner had suffered an economic loss of `40,000/- and also suffered harassment, for which the penalty of `2,00,000/- should be given to him. In the petition, he has demanded that the amount of `43,756/-, allegedly charged extra by the Bank, `40,000/- for business loss, `1 lakh for taking the vehicle away two times without reason and a sum of `2 lakh as harassment should be paid to him. 5. A perusal of the consumer complaint in question, reveals that the petitioner has himself admitted that he made repayment of instalments regularly upto 1st Nov. 2004 and thereafter, he defaulted in making payments for the next 4 months. It is clear, therefore, that the Bank proceeded against him, only because the petitioner had become defaulter in the repayment of loan. The District Forum vide their order dated 14.06.2007 stated that the OP had received an extra amount of `28,918/- from the petitioner on various counts, which had caused mental harassment and economic loss to the petitioner. The District Forum allowed the repayment of `28,918/- to the petitioner alongwith interest @9% p.a. and compensation of `10,000/- for mental harassment and `1,500/- as cost of litigation. In the two appeals filed before the State Commission, the State Commission upheld the conclusion of the District Forum for awarding an amount of `28,918/- to the petitioner, but they ordered to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7% p.a. They also reached the conclusion that there was no need to award a sum of `10,000/- for mental agony. From a perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any perversity or legal lacuna in the order passed by the State Commission. The contention of the petitioner for being compensated for extra amount charged and for mental harassment and business loss etc. have been duly analysed by the District Forum and State Commission and we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the same. It is very clear that the petitioner admittedly became defaulter in the repayment of loan and hence, the Bank was within their rights to proceed against him for the recovery of the loan amount. We, therefore, agree with the impugned order by which the extra amount charged has been ordered to be returned to the petitioner, but no valid ground has been found for compensation on account of mental harassment etc. 6. In view of position discussed above, it is held that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error and hence the same is ordered to be confirmed. The present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.