Citibank N.A., petitioner herein was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent purchased two Indica cars, which were to be                  used as ‘TAXI’, financed by the petitioner.  It was alleged by                  the respondent in the complaint that the petitioner had                          forcibly  taken  possession  of  the  vehicles  without  any   defect  in

-2-

making the payment of the installments by him.  According to the petitioner, the respondent had voluntarily surrendered the cars as he expressed his inability to pay any further installments.  The complaint filed by the respondent was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 28.2.2005.  It was found that the respondent had paid all the installments due upto date and nothing was due from him.  It was further held that the petitioner had taken forcible possession of the vehicles without issuing any notice to the respondent.  District Forum directed the petitioner to refund the amount recovered from the complainant in the form of monthly installments and cheque bouncing charges to him with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.6.2004 till realization.  The unutilized advanced monthly installments cheques issued by the respondent to the petitioner were also directed to be returned along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by way of compensation and Rs.2,000/- by way of litigation costs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

-3-

          Aggrieved by this, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been partly allowed.  The direction issued by the District Forum to refund the installments already paid was quashed.  Rest of the order was upheld.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’ which show that the respondent had voluntarily surrendered the vehicles.  These documents have not been accepted by the foras below.  Petitioner in its own affidavit admitted that it had charged Rs.19,000/- for each of the vehicles as Possession Charges.  If the cars had been voluntarily surrendered by the respondent, then the question of Possession Charges to the tune of Rs.19,000/- for each of the vehicles did not arise.  We find no force in this submission. 

          Counsel for the petitioner also contended that Rs.19,000/- were charged for safe keeping cars.  In its affidavit dated 30.6.2006,               the petitioner has stated that the vehicle NO. DL-1Y-7476 was

-4-

surrendered on 21.7.2003 and sold on 31.7.2003 i.e. within a period of 10 days.  The question of Possession Charges/Safe Keeping  under the circumstances, did not arise as the car had been sold within a period of 10 days.  Revision petition is dismissed.  No costs.