This Order shall dispose of Revision Petition No.1112 of 2007 filed by the ICICI Bank (for short, the Bank), which was Opposite Party before the District Forum and Revision Petition NO,2297/2007 filed by the Khirod Kumar Behera, who was-Complainant  before the District Forum( hereinafter referred to Complainant) against the same Order dated 20.2.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short,  the State Commission) passed in Appeal No. 726 and 797 of 2006, wherein the State Commission has directed the Bank  to pay a  sum of Rs.70,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and loss of business to the Complainant and has further directed the Bank to pay Rs.2,14,000/- which was received by the Bank towards margin money  along with Rs.5000/- as costs.

          As per allegation made in the complaint,  Complainant in order to eke out  his livelihood by way of self-employment decided  to purchase a tipper.  He approached the Bank for sanction of loan.    Bank agreed to advance loan  and  obtained an agreement in that regard from him.  Loan amounting to  Rs.12,12,565/- was sanctioned which was to be repaid  by the Complainant in 35 equal monthly instalments of Rs.39,805/-.  Complainant purchased Tata  tipper for Rs.14,26,565/-.  He paid Rs.2,14,000/- as down payment to the Bank  and balance amount of Rs.12,12,565/- was financed by the Bank.  He also spent Rs.52,000/-  for registration, insurance, road tax etc. for the  vehicle which came to be  registered  as OR-09-F-0087.  It is alleged that  although Complainant had been  paying the instalments, the Bank without any notice seized the vehicle on 8^th November, 2005.  When Complainant approached the   officials of the Bank to know about the reasons of   seizure of the vehicle, he was told  that he had defaulted in payment  of loan instalments.  By that time, out of twelve instalments, he had paid ten intalments and there was default of payment of two instalments only.  He assured the Bank officials that he would repay the outstanding dues and requested them to release the vehicle but his  entreat yielded no result.    Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, Complainant filed a complaint  before  District Forum claiming Rs.90,000/- compensation on three counts.

          On being served, Bank entered appearance and filed its written statement justifying  seizure of the vehicle.  According to   Bank,  Complainant  had committed to it that he would regularly pay instalment dues on 22^nd of every month, but he did not adhere to it.  He was telegraphically informed that unless he paid  outstanding  amount of Rs.79,610/-, action in accordance with the agreement would be taken.  Complainant did not  pay any heed to the warning.  Under the circumstances,  Bank was left with no option but to take possession of the vehicle on  8.11.2005.  After repossessing the vehicle, Bank issued  letter  on 12^th  November, 2006  to Complainant asking him to pay Rs.9,91,346/- along with other charges  within  7 days, but he did not care to it.  Ultimately, the vehicle was sold to one Kailash Singh for Rs.7,25,000/- on 27.1.2006. 

District Forum after taking into consideration  the material on record allowed  the complaint  directing the Bank to release   the tipper  in favour of the  Complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/-  as compensation.   District Forum  held that  Bank did not indicate the extent of default  or the repayment schedule and therefore, repossession as well as sale  of the vehicle to the third party was  arbitrary and  on account of such highhanded action business of the Complainant was severely affected.

          Aggrieved   by  the Order passed by the District Forum both the parties  i.e.  Bank as well as Complainant filed separate  appeal before the State Commission.   State Commission after taking into consideration the fact that the vehicle had already been sold by  the Bank,  modified the Order of the District Forum and  instead of return of the vehicle, directed the Bank to pay Rs.2,14,000/-  i.e. the down payment  made by the Complainant with interest @ 6% from the date of payment and Rs.70,000/- towards  loss of business as well as compensation   and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

           Bank has filed  Revision  Petition No.1112/2007 seeking quashing of the Order passed by the Fora below whereas Complainant has filed  Revision Petition No.2297/2007 seeking enhancement  of the rate of interest as well as compensation.   Since both the Revision Petitions  are directed against the same Order, we shall dispose of both the  Revision Petition by a common  order.

          State Commission has recorded four-fold reasons to come to the conclusion that the Bank was deficient  in rendering  the service and had acting in an arbitrary and  highhanded manner.  It has been held that the stand taken by the Bank that the vehicle was seized due to non-payment of  the EMIS for the months of  June,2005 and September, 2005, was not acceptable because the Bank had accepted EMIs deposited by the Complainant on 26^th June, 2005, 27^th July, 2005 and 28^th August, 2005 which clearly showed that the Bank did not stick to the punctuality of payment of the EMIS on the 22^nd of  every month.    Secondly that the Bank forced the Complainant  to buy the chasis  from Mithila Motors, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) whereas the same was available in Bhubaneswar itself.  That there was no apparent reason to book the vehicle in neighbouring State when the same was available at Bhubanesswar.   Further it is held that although the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 7^th February, 2005, the Bank collected EMIs of Rs.39,805/- each for the months of December, 2004 and  January, 2005.  The Bank also collected Rs.2,14,000/- from the Complainant towards margin money  on 13^th November, 2004  whereas the said money ought to have been paid by the Complainant to the dealer from whom the vehicle was purchased.  That the exaction  of EMIs from the Complainant before effecting delivery of the vehicle was dictatorial  and highhanded  That the Bank had acted  illegally by collecting the sum of Rs.2,14,000/- as margin money which should have been collected by Mithila Motors Ltd.  Another finding recorded by the State Commission is that under clause G(1)  of the agreement before taking physical possession of the vehicle, the Bank was required to issue 15 days’ notice  demanding the loanee to make payment.  That the Bank had failed to follow the said  procedure.  That the alleged telegram was sent on 27.10.2005 requiring the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.79,610/- whereas vehicle was seized  on 8^th  November, 2005.

          State Commission keeping in view the fact that the vehicle had already been sold to a third person who was not a party to the complaint concluded that the vehicle could not be retrieved.  In order to settle the equities, State Commission directed the Bank to refund the  margin money of Rs.2,14,000/- paid by the complainant along with 6% interest,  Rs.70,000/- towards loss of business as well as  compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs.

          Learned counsel appearing for the Bank states that he does not press the Revision Petition No.1112 of 2007  filed by the Bank.  Hence, Revision Petition No.1112 of 2007 is dismissed as withdrawn.

          The only point for consideration in Revision Petition No. 2297 of 2007 is whether the Complainant has made out a case for enhancement of the compensation and increase in the rate of interest.

Learned Counsel for the Complainant contends that the rate of interest should be increased from 6%  to 12% and the  amount of compensation should also be adequately increased. 

The price of the Tipper was Rs.14,26,565/-.  The   amount of loan  was Rs.12,12,565/-.  Equated monthly instalment was fixed at  Rs.39,805/-.   Complainant had, in all, paid Rs.3,59,415/-  out of which Rs.2,80,574/-  was towards principal amount and Rs.78,841/- towards interest.     Complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- towards margin money.   In all, the Bank received  Rs.3,59,415/- out of Rs.12,12,565/- advanced by the Bank.  The Bank had received  Rs.7,25,000/- from the sale of the vehicle,   and   Rs.3,59,415/- from the EMIs paid by the Complainant,  the total of which comes to Rs.10,84,415/-.   The Bank was still to recover  Rs.1,28,150/-   plus interest  from the Complainant.

          The Bank was certainly deficient in rendering service.  But the Complainant   was also guilty  of not paying EMIs in time for the month of June, 2005 and September, 2005.  In fact, the Bank has suffered a loss of nearly Rs.3,00,000/-  towards principal amount and interest thereon.   Further, the Bank has been ordered to refund  Rs.2,14,000/- towards margin money paid by the Complainant along with interest @ 6%.  Thus the total loss suffered by the Bank comes  to about Rs.6.00 lakhs.  In view of the fact that   Complainant had also committed default,  the compensation awarded by the State Commission cannot be increased as the Bank has also suffered a loss of nearly Rs.6.00 lakhs.  Similarly rate of interest also cannot be increased  as the Complainant had used the vehicle for 9 months.

           Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission in order to even out the equities between the parties  has rightly  directed the Bank to refund the sum of Rs.2,14,000/- paid by the Complainant to the Bank towards margin money along with interest @ 6% per annum and to pay a compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards  compensation.  Since the Complainant has also committed default in making the payment, the rate of interest as well as compensation awarded by the State Commission is reasonable and cannot be interfered with.   No case  is made out by the Complainant either for enhancement of the compensation or  increase in the rate of interest.

          For the reasons stated above, impugned order passed by the State Commission is affirmed and the Revision Petition No.2297 of 2007 filed by the Complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs.

          If any amount has been deposited by the  Bank  in the Registry of the Commission   or with the Fora  below the same be paid to  Complainant along with the interest accrued thereon if any, in part satisfaction of decree.  Balance amount, if any,  shall be paid by the Bank  to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of this Order failing which complainant would be at liberty to execute the  decree under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.