Aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in Appeal No. 250/2009, M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., opposite party no. 2 in the original complaint, has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 22.04.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh in complaint no. 65 / 2008 filed by the respondent no. 1 / complainant, by which order, the said District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant / respondent and directed the petitioner to hand over the vehicle, in question, in running condition to the complainant within 15 days from the date of the order and also to pay compensation @Rs.500/- per day for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of not providing the vehicle in time after repairs. The District Forum also stipulated that if the vehicle was not returned as directed then the cost of the vehicle shall be paid to the complainant besides awarding a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the litigation. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the other opposite party and modified the order passed by the District Forum in the manner that the directions in respect of the payment of compensation @Rs.500/- per day was set aside and the petitioner was directed to pay the cost of the vehicle after deducting repair charges as per the job card to the complainant within 15 days from the date of the said order and to pay interest @9% p.a. on the awarded amount besides cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. As at the time of first ever hearing of the petition it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had received only a sum of Rs.30,193/- as an upfront / marginal charges in respect of the vehicle in question and besides that no further amount towards EMI which was required to be paid by the respondent / complainant was not received. Therefore, limited notice was issued to the respondent on this aspect as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the relief so granted by the State Commission was unjustified. 3. Mr. Mahaling Pandarge, counsel for the petitioner would assail the order passed by the State Commission on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence and material brought on record, least it being in consonance with the settled legal position. He submits that petitioner being the financer was the owner of the vehicle, in question, and the vehicle was given to the respondent / complainant on the basis of hire-purchase agreement for which the respondent / complainant was liable to pay the EMIs. Since not a single EMI was paid, the State Commission could not direct the petitioner to refund the price of the vehicle to the respondent / complainant. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not disputed this position but it was pleaded by the counsel for the respondent / complainant that besides paying a sum of Rs.30,193/- as upfront / marginal charges, the respondent / complainant had incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs.25,000/- towards registration charges, Rs.25,000/- on accessories and Rs.13,788/- towards insurance of the vehicle. He further submits that besides spending this much amount, the respondent has suffered loss of income as vehicle was not repaired in time and continued to be remain in the garage of the petitioner or the dealer. 4. Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record, we are of the considered opinion that both the fora below have failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in correct perspective and overlooked the important aspect that the respondent / complainant was not the owner of the vehicle and he could not have become the owner of the vehicle till such time, he had paid all the EMIs under the hire-purchase agreement. Therefore, there was no question of the petitioner being directed to pay the cost of the vehicle to the respondent / complainant which would clearly amount to undue enrichment of the respondent / complainant which is not permissible under the Law. 5. In view of above, we are of the view that it would adequately meet the ends of justice if we direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the respondent / complainant towards upfront charges, insurance amount etc. and a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the monetary loss which might have occasioned to the respondent / complainant. Meaning thereby that the respondent / complainant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-, in all, from the petitioner. In view of the fact that we have granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to the respondent / complainant, we do not think it appropriate to grant any interest on the awarded amount. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1,05,000/- to the respondent / complainant within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the awarded interest shall carry interest @12% p.a. The revision petition stands disposed off in above terms.