Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.      Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant while availing a loan of Rs. 8,18,902/- from the opposite party no.2 to purchase a Tata Truck on the agreement to repay the same on 45 equal  monthly instalment i.e. the first 35 instalments at the rate of Rs. 26,119/-  and the rest 10 instalments at the rate of Rs. 13,769/-per month. It is further alleged that on 25.3.2007, the vehicle was stolen for which the matter was reported to the insurer with whom the vehicle has been insured by the complainant. It is alleged that her claim was settled on 12.1.2008 i.e. after ten months of the occurrence without any interest. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 on receipt of cheque from opposite party no.4, Rs. 7,72,447/- has been taken away on different heads and remitted Rs. 1,61,565/- to the credit of complainant. The complainant alleged that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2  having already paid the major amount till the date of  theft, but the financier unreasonably deducted Rs. 58,891/- for DPC, Rs.21,341.11 for termination charge, Rs. 5,463/- for insurance charges, Rs. 2,309.04 for interest on principal OS till settlement date. It is further alleged by the complainant that all the charges claimed against the complainant wrongly, but the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not paid any attention to the request of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint case is filed.

4.      The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed written version stating that there is no cause of action as the case is barred by limitation. It is further averred that the complainant having acknowledged receipt of cheque from the opposite parties in respect of balance amount to her entitlements towards insurance policy. Opposite Party no.1 also took the plea that the matter should be adjudicated by an Arbitrator within the territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata. According to him all other allegations should be disposed of separately. Further he submitted that the value of the agreement was Rs. 10,51,855/- which was to be liquidated in 45 instalments i.e. first 35 EMI from 1.5.2006 to 28.3.2009 at the rate of Rs. 26,119/- per month and rest from 1.4.2009 to 31.10.2010 at the rate of Rs. 13,769/-. As such, the complainant has to pay from 1.5.2006 to 1.1.2008 (21 instalments) amounting to Rs.5,48,499/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,69,547/- to be payable by the complainant. The complainant wanted pre-termination of agreement on 1.1.2008. She has availed rebate in interest at Rs. 32,656/- plus exemption of interest.

5.      The opposite party no.4 filed written version stating that there is no cause of action to file the case. Further case of opposite party no.4 is that the claim is within the knowledge of the insurer. However, he has settled the claim.

6.      After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, learned District Forum has passed the following order:-

  “In the result the complaint is allowed on contest against all the O.Ps. with compensation and cost. The O.Ps. No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 1,76,598.40 paisa with 10% interest per annum from 12.1.08 till date of payment along with Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and cost and O.P.No. 4 is directed to pay 10% interest on Rs. 9,67,501.95 paisa from 1.7.07 till the date of payment to complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper so far their rule is concerned. According to him, the mistake committed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 with regard to calculation of interest, charge of EMI after the theft of the vehicle took place. Otherwise, they are no fault and the complainant is duty bound to pay all the EMIs along with other charges till the vehicle is theft. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.         Considered the submissions of the parties, perused the DFR and the impugned order.

          We found that the entire amount of Rs. 8,18,902/- was settled in favour of the complainant and out of which Rs. 7,72,447/- has been credited to the account of opposite parties 1 and 2 and rest of the amount has been remitted to the account of the complainant. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are unable to reply with the query of the court as to what happened to the interest and how you have counted after the theft took place. However, the complainant claims that he is about to get Rs. 1,68,000/- and also Rs. 2,52,833/-. She is also not able to satisfy with this amount. In one hand, the complainant is not clear and on the other hand, opposite parties 1 and 2 also not performed their job about the interest after the vehicle was theft.

9.      In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that learned District Forum has not committed any error and accordingly, the impugned order is confirmed.

10.    Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that imposition of compensation of Rs.30,000/- may be relaxed for the appellant.

11.    We considered the submission since the opposite parties 1 and 2 admitted to have deducted the loan after theft is committed, we take lenient view and while confirming the impugned order, we hereby set aside the order of compensation amount. We also took the view that because of the settled principle of law, compensation and cost both cannot be awarded. The rest of the impugned order shall remain unaltered.

          We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay rest of the amount to the complainant within a period of 45 days from today

          The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.