The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant challenging the order dated 24.7.2017 of the State Commission passed in Appeal No.454 of 2015 of the respondent against the order dated 14^th October, 2015 of the District Consumer Forum, awarding a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.10,000/-.

The State Commission vide impugned order reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs on the ground that the amount awarded by the District Forum was excessive.

The respondent had also challenged the impugned order dated 24.7.2017 in its Revision Petition No.3591 of 2017, claiming that there was no deficiency on their part and hence they were not liable to pay any compensation. The said revision petition of the respondent was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 16.1.2018 holding that the respondent was liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service.

In brief the facts are that the complainant had purchased a house and for that he took a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the respondent. Since he did not pay the EMIs in time, the respondent filed a civil suit No.OS/61/04 before Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and a preliminary decree was passed on 20.8.2004. Subsequent to this preliminary decree, the petitioner cleared the loan amount. The respondent, however, did not obtain the final decree. Even after the loan amount was cleared, the original title deed of the property was not returned to the petitioner by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of District Forum and filed the complaint. The concurrent finding of the fact that the respondent had failed to discharge its obligation and had failed to return the original documents to the petitioner. Hence, there was deficiency in service. Challenge of the respondent to these findings had been rejected by this Commission in his revision petition No.3591 of 2017 vide order dated 16.1.2018, and this order, since not challenged by the respondent has attached finality.

The District Forum had calculated deficiency in service at Rs.5 lakhs and awarded the said amount as compensation to the petitioner. In the impugned order, the State Commission, however, was of the opinion that this amount was excessive and hence reduced it to Rs.2.5 lakhs holding that since the loan amount itself was Rs.3 lakhs, the compensation cannot be more than that.

Vide present revision petition, the complainant/petitioner has stated that the findings of the State Commission on this count are illegal and devoid of merit and that the compensation amount should be enhanced to Rs.5 lakhs as awarded by the District Forum.

We have given thoughtful consideration to this argument of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to draw our attention to any fact or evidence showing that the actual loss suffered by the petitioner is Rs.5 lakh. In view of this fact, the State Commission has rightly held that amount of Rs.5 which amount was more than the loan amount availed by the petitioner, is disproportionate and excessive. It is also a fact that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the EMI towards loan amount and cleared the loan only after a decree of Civil Court against him. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.