Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. Respondent filed the complaint with the allegation that she had purchased a Telco Truck on 04.05.2004 after obtaining a loan of Rs.8,31,000/- from the petitioenr. She also spent Rs.1,55,000/- for erecting the body of the truck. She was required to repay the amount of Rs. 8,31,000/- in 35 equated monthly installments of Rs. 27,794/- -2- out of which 33 installments were paid. Petitioner took forcible possession of the truck by sending his hooligans. Respondent was asked to deposit Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner which she did but the truck was not released. It was alleged that the truck was sold by the petitioner without the consent of the respondent. Thus being aggrieved respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.8,50,000/- and Rs.1400/- per day by way of damages due to non-plying of truck w.e.f. 07.11.2006. Petitioner entered appearance and filed the written statement taking the plea that respondent was a chorolonical defaulter as she used to make the payment of the installments belatedly; that the petitioner had sent many letters to the respondent asking her to make the payment. The District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence led by the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.7,45,600/- i.e. the price of the truck at the -3- time of seizure; Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards costs of litigation. Respondent/complainant accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file any appeal. Petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.6,76,618/- towards price of the seized truck with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 07.11.2005 till realization. On a contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any appeal filed by the respondent, an adverse order against the petitioner could not be passed directing the petitioner to pay interest @ 18% in the appeal filed by the petitioner, limited notice subject to payment of Rs.7 Lacs to the respondent/complainant was issued regarding the direction of payment of interest. Respondent on being served has put in appearance. -4- Counsel for the respondent states that the sum of Rs.7 Lacs, as per direction issued on 08.10.2010, has been paid to the respondent. the sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses has also been paid. Counsel for the parties have been heard. We find substance in the submission raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Respondent accepted the order of the District Forum. The State Commission could not and should not have varied the order to the disadvantage to the petitioner in the appeal filed by the petitioner. In the absence of any appeal by the respondent, the State Commission has erred in directing the petitioner to pay interest @ 9% p.a. in the appeal filed by the petitioner. An order adverse to the petitioner could not have been passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, limited notice issued to the respondent is made absolute. The direction issued by the State Commission to pay interest @ 9% p.a. is set aside. Rest of the order of the State Commission is upheld.
-5- Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. | 
