1.       Revision Petition No.2808/2013 has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against the order dated 10.06.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh in First Appeal No.424/2012. Cross Revision Petition No.901/2018 has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant challenging the impugned order dated 10.06.2013.  

2.       Case of the Complainant is that on 26.10.2007 he purchased a tractor for a sum of Rs.4,59,446/-. He took loan of Rs.3,89,446/- from the Opposite Party. The Complainant repaid the amount in instalments and only a sum of Rs.18,877/- was due. The Complainant could not pay Rs.18,877/- as his mother was hospitalized. On 06.01.2010, employees of the Opposite Party- Mr. Surendra Chowdary, Mr. Kumar, Mr. Venkatamuni Naidu, Mr. P. Durga Prasad came to the house of the Complainant in his absence and forcefully took away the tractor. Brother-in-law of the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.18,877/- but the Opposite Parties demanded Rs.38,523/- claiming interest for delayed payment. The Opposite Parties also sold the tractor to a third Party. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with following prayer: -

“a)    Directing the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 to hand over the Tractor bearing Mahindra 4750 IOB PLT T.R.S. No. NCLT17563F7 purchased on 26.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.4,59,446/- to the Complainant;

b.)     Directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,500/- towards compensation i.e. from 06.01.2010 to 20.10.2011 when the Opposite Party No.1 and his subordinates came to his residence in the village and forcibly took away the tractor (the complainant sustained loss of Rs.15,000/- per month average.);

c)       Directing the Opposite Parties to pay future damages and mental agony at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month;

d)      directing the Opposite Parties to pay the costs of this Complaint; and

e)       Pass necessary order or orders as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3.       The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties by filing the written statement. The Opposite Parties took the preliminary objection that the Complaint was not maintainable as the Complainant had earlier filed CC/32/2010 on the same cause of action and the same was dismissed. The Opposite Parties specifically denied the allegation that they took away the vehicle forcibly. It was also stated that the Complainant was a defaulter, therefore, the Opposite Parties started recovering proceedings as per the Agreement. Thereafter, the Complainant cleared dues and NOC was issued in favour of the Complainant. After receiving NOC, the Complainant filed false case against the Opposite Parties.

4.       After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, the District Forum, vide order dated24.05.2012 allowed the Complaint with following observation: -

“Now coming to the relief the complainant claimed value of the vehicle which was shown to Rs.4,59,446/- by the  date of 26/10/2007. In other words by the date of possession the vehicle was nearly three years old. By applying 10% depreciation on the reduced value it will come to Rs.3,34,937/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty four thousand nine hundred and thirty seven only) and the opposite parties are directed to pay the same. The complainant contends that he was deprived of using the vehicle and claimed at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and the Forum has no reason to disallow the claim. Accordingly a sum of Rs.2,77,500/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy seven thousand five hundred only) is awarded, the opposite parties are also liable to pay interest at 12% on the total amount of Rs.6,12,437/- (Rupees six lakhs twelve thousand four hundred thirty seven only) from the date complaint that is 01.12.2011, till the date of realization. The Complainant is also awarded costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only.)”

 5.      Aggrieved by order dated 24.05.2012, the Opposite Parties First Appeal No.424/2012 with the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 10.06.2013, modified the order passed by the District Forum with following observation: -

“In the result, the appeal is disposed of modifying the order of the District Forum directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.4,34,937/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of complaint, i.e., 02.12.2011 till the date of realization and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Rest of the claim of the complainant stands dismissed.”

6.       Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.06.2013, the Opposite Parties filed Revision Petition No.2808/2013. Similarly, not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the Complainant filed Revision Petition No.901/2018.

7.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Citi Corp. Maruti Finance Ltd. vs. Vijayalaxmi, Civil Appeal No.9711 of 2011 dated 14.11.2011 wherein Financial Institutions and Banks were warned against forcible taking away of vehicles. The State Commission also failed to appreciate that the Complainant was paying the instalments regularly. There was delay in payment of the last instalment only. The dispute related to the interest on the last instalment amount. The impugned order of the State Commission, thus, suffered from illegality and irregularity and liable to be set aside.

8.       Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that both the Fora below failed to appreciate the fact that Complainant earlier filed CC/32/2010 with the District Forum and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The second Complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable and barred by the principle of res judicata. It was also submitted that the Complainant had made a false allegation that the Opposite Parties have forcefully taken away the tractor. The Complainant had made entire payment and the Opposite Parties also issued NOC in favour of the Complainant. There was, thus, no reason for the Opposite Parties to take away the tractor. The Complainant himself transferred the tractor in the name of the Opposite Parties. The Fora below failed to appreciate that the Consumer Complaint was a counter blast to the routine demands made by the Petitioner for payment of loan during the subsistence of the loan transactions, as is evident from the statement of the Sub Inspector.

9.       As far as question of maintainability is concerned, the District Forum held that Consumer Complaint No.32/2010 was filed by the Complainant in the names of the individuals working in the office of the Opposite Party/Finance Company. The Complainant, therefore, withdrew the said Complaint. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint as withdrawn with liberty to the Complaint to file a fresh Consumer Complaint. The allegation of the Opposite Parties that the second Complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable is, therefore, rejected.  Regarding the question of forcibly taking away the vehicle, the Opposite Parties took the ground that the Complainant himself transferred the vehicle in their name. In this regard, the Opposite Parties relied on Form 29, 30 and 35 relating to transfer of the vehicle. The District Forum as well as the State Commission observed that there was difference in the signature in Form 29, 30 and 35 and transfer of the vehicle was manipulated by the Opposite Parties.

10.     Regarding quantum of compensation, both the Fora below held that after 10% depreciation, the value of the tractor was Rs.3,34,937/-. None of the Parties disputed the value of the tractor. The District Forum awarded Rs.2,77,550/- against loss of income at Rs.15,000/- per month. The State Commission observed that the Complainant could not produce any evidence relating to income and awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.1 lakh towards loss of income. The State Commission also reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 9%. Since value of the tractor assessed by the Fora below is not dispute by the Parties, we find that the State Commission was justified in awarding Rs.3,34,937/- against value of the tractor. The State Commission observed that the Complainant could not file any evidence to establish the loss of income. The State Commission, however, awarded lumpsum amount Rs.1 lakh towards loss of income, which is not justified. The impugned order of the State Commission so far as it relates to award of lumpsum amount of Rs.1 lakh towards loss of income, is set aside. Rest of the order of the State Commission is affirmed.

11.     Both Revision Petitions stand disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.