M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, which was arrayed as opposite party No.3 in the                complaint filed before the District Forum, seeks to                                 invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under                  Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for setting                          aside    the   order   dated   27.7.2005   passed   by    the   Karnataka

-2-

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (For short the State Commission) in appeal No.1080/2005 vide which the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, thereby upholding the order passed by the District Forum allowing the complaint with the following directions:

ORDER

(1)             The complaint is allowed.

(2)             The 3ed Opponent is directed to return the vehicle KA-11-4644 in question along with all documents to the Complainant within 15 days & obtain acknowledgement for the same failing which 3ed Opponent has to pay fine of a sum of Rs.200/- per day to the complainant until payment of the said fine and the 3ed Opponent is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

(3)             The Opponents are here by directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs of this complaint.”

2.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner                  and counsel for the respondent at length.                                                              The     facts     and     circumstances    leading    to     the       filing

-3-

of the complaint have been amply noted in the order dated 27.6.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya and need not repetition at our end.  We may simply notice that the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner herein in having illegally and unauthorisedly and without any justification repossessed the motorcycle Yamaha Crux Reg. No. KA-11-4644 despite the complainant having paid most of the loan amount through installments.  The petitioner, though, represented on record through an Advocate failed to file any written version and, therefore, going by the say of the complainant and the material placed on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint in the above manner.  Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for the simple reason that the petitioner had defaulted in putting up his defence before the District Forum.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the                impugned order, rather in fact he also seeks to assail the order                 of the District Forum, most particularly in so far as the said                    order it has directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of                    Rs. 200/-   per day  to  the  complainant  until  the  payment  of    the

-4-

said fine and, further to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.  He submits that in compliance of the first direction in regard to the return of the vehicle in question and pursuant to the direction subsequently given by this Commission, the complainant by a registered communication dated 13.3.2006 had requested the respondent to take possession of the vehicle in question.  However, the respondent failed to turn up in order to take repossession.  The fact remains that the directions contained in the order passed by the District Forum have remained uncomplied till date.  Though, the action of the petitioner in repossessing the vehicle in question is sought to be justified on the ground that the respondent was still in arrears of at least four installments and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was still due and payable as on the date of the repossession of the vehicle, but, in view of the                               subsequent developments and lapse of time which has                      occurred in the matter since the alleged cause of action arose, counsel is not pressing that submission and states that                            the order passed by the District Forum and as upheld by the State

-5-

Commission will act harshly on the petitioner if it is not set aside.  On the other hand, counsel for the respondent supports the order so passed by the District Forum.

4.      Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and assuming that the petitioner is guilty of the deficiency in service as alleged by the respondent/complainant and the extent of the said deficiency, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum so far it has imposed a find of Rs.200/- per day, was unwarranted and uncalled and in any case, excessive and harsh.  The relief to which the complainant/respondent was reasonably entitled, in circumstances, could either be the return of the motorcycle or its value with some compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to the alleged unauthorized seizure of the vehicle.  In this case, it is born out that the vehicle in question was purchased at a price of Rs.42,538/- under exchange of his old         vehicle valued at Rs.23,348/-.  The balance amount was to be              paid by him in installments.  It is not disputed that by the                             time  the  vehicle  was  repossessed,   the  complainant  had  paid  a

-6-

sum of Rs.20,000/- meaning thereby that almost the entire price of the new vehicle had been paid to the petitioner, regard being had to the value of the old vehicle received by the petitioner.  It is not disputed that the vehicle was repossessed in the year 2004 and must have been used by the complainant for about 4 years after its purchase.  After deduction on account of appreciation for this period of about 4 years, value of said vehicle would have been reduced at lest by 25-30% , if not more, this would show that at the relevant time when the vehicle was repossessed by the petitioner, its value was not more than Rs.30,000, in any case.  Since the vehicle has been in possession of the petitioner for over a period of 6 years now, we would not like the petitioner to hand over the vehicle to the respondent at this stage and rather, we would quantify the compensation on monetary terms only.  In our view, it would adequately meet the ends of justice if the petitioner is called upon to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as value of the motorcycle on the date                  of its  seizure  by  the  petitioner  and  Rs. 20,000/-  as  compensation

-7-

for the loss and injury which the respondent can be said to have suffered due to the said deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

5.      In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed, while maintaining the finding of the District Forum in regard to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, we modify the said order to the extent that the petitioner shall pay a total sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent within a period of four weeks.  If the amount s not paid, it will carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a.  After complying these directions, the motorcycle in question will become the property of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be entitled to deal with the same in the manner it likes to.  We also direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent as costs of proceedings.  Before parting with the case, we would like to make it clear that the compensation awarded in the case is on the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case and will not constitute a precedent for future reference.  

-8-

Dasti in addition.