1.      This Revision Petition No.721 of 2021 challenges the impugned order of U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘the State Commission’) dated 12.06.2020. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed the First Appeal No. 1556/2018 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Firozabad (‘the District Forum’) dated 27.07.2018.

2.      As per office report, there is a delay of 379 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo-motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation suspended the period of limitation for filing proceedings before any Courts/ Tribunals or any Authority due to Covid-19 Pandemic from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Limitation would be further extended by 90 days from 01.03.2022, i.e. till 29.05.2022. Since 29.05.2022 is Sunday, the matter filed on 30.05.2022 would be considered to have been filed within limitation.  Therefore, the present Revision Petition, which was filed during the suspended period of limitation, is treated to have been filed within limitation.

3.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the original Complaint filed before the learned District Forum.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Bolero truck from Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., financed by the Opposite Parties (OPs). As per the vehicle finance agreement, he was to pay monthly instalments, and in the event of non-payment, the OPs had the right to seize the vehicle. Once the outstanding amount was paid, the vehicle would be returned to the complainant. On 23.10.2017, due to the complainant’s failure to pay the instalments, the vehicle was seized by the OPs from his driver in Mainpuri. After learning about this, he paid all outstanding dues on 27.10.2017, and the OPs assured him that the vehicle would be released and he was directed to collect the vehicle from the Etah godown, But, upon arrival, the vehicle was not present, and the OP continued to evade his inquiries. Later, the OPs informed him that the vehicle had been seized by ARTO Hathras and instructed the complainant to recover it from there. As the vehicle was seized while in the custody of the OPs, it was the responsibility of OPs to release the vehicle. Despite serving a legal notice, the vehicle was not returned to him. Being aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.

5.      In reply before the District Forum, the OPs stated that the complainant violated the finance agreement by failing to make timely payments. The vehicle was seized on 23.10.2017, but after he cleared the dues on 27.10.2017, the vehicle was returned to him. The OPs contended that the vehicle was not kept in the Etah godown and denied knowledge of its seizure by ARTO Hathras. Any seizure by ARTO was the complainant’s responsibility and that the vehicle was being used for business purposes, making the complaint liable for dismissal.

6.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 27.07.2018 allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners/Opposite Parties as under:

“ORDER

  The Complaint of the complainant is party accepted and the opposite are ordered to release the vehicle is question from the A.R.T.O. Hathras or the competent authority and deliver the possession of the vehicle to the plaintiff as soon as possible. And Rs 1000/- at the rate of daily monetary damage from 27-10-2017 till the date of providing the vehicle in question to the plaintiff by the opposite party but is the vehicle is released by the plaintiff himself, then by that date the opposite party will be payable to the plaintiff during the said period the opposite parties shall not recover any delay or penal interest from the plaintiff in the payment of delayed insatallments. if the opposite parties fail to get the said vehicle released from the competent authority, then the complainant can get the vehicle in question free from the competent authority after 7 days from the date of decision. Expenses such advocates fees fines and other miscellaneous expenses, which will be actual incurred by the complainant, will be liable to be paid by the complainant at the rate of 7% interest to the complainant from the date of recovery. Along with this, Rs.30,000/- as mental compensation and Rs.2000/- as complaint expenses will also be paid to the complainant.  Compliance of the dicision to be ensured within 30 days.”

                                                  (Extracted from translated copy)

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners/OPs filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 12.06.2020 dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the District Forum with following observation:

  “The District Forum has mentioned in its decision that dated 27-10-2017 at 12:20 P.M. the vehicle in question has been seized by A.R.T.O. Hathras and 6 minutes ago, the order of release of the vehicle has been received through e- mail to the respondents/complainants district Firozabad. District Forum has mentioned in its decision that it must have taken at least one hour to reach Etah from Firozabad in such a situation, the statement of the respondents/ complainants to be credible that on his reaching at Etah yard, the vehicle was not at there as per the order of the appellant/opposition. Therefore, the District Forum has considered that statement of the respondents/complainants to be credible that the vehicle has been seized from the custody of the appellant/opposition. The finding of the District Forum is based on the correct and legal interpretation of the witness. The finding of the District Forum cannot be said to be against the evidence and law. The District Forum has mentioned in its decision that is clear from the details of the records relating to the seizure of the vehicle by the A.R.T.O. that the vehicle was being driven with 24 passengers while the vehicle was registered in loading vehicle. After taking the possession of the vehicle in case of default in payment of installments, the appellant/ opposition or their employees using the vehicle for the passengers is definitely a deficiency in the service of the appellant/opposition. The appellant/opposition is liable on this principle of vicarious liability for the deficiency in the service of his employees. This conclusion of the District Forum is also justified as per the evidence and law. 

  After considering the entire facts, evidence and circumstances. I have come to the view that there is no proper ground for any interference in the decision of the District Forum. The appeal is found without force. Hence, it is dismissed.”

(Extracted from translated copy)

8.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioners reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the complainant violated the finance agreement by failing to make timely payments. The vehicle was seized on 23.10.2017, but after the complainant cleared the dues on 27.10.2017, the vehicle was returned to him. He further argued that the vehicle was not kept in the Etah godown and denied knowledge of its seizure by ARTO Hathras. Any seizure by ARTO was the complainant’s responsibility and that the vehicle was being used for business purposes, making the complaint liable for dismissal. He further argued that the complainant is not a consumer as he was used the vehicle for commercial purpose. He sought to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the orders passed by the Fora below. He relied upon the following judgements in support of his arguments:

(i) Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995 AIR 1428),

(ii) Sri Jasobanta Narayan Ram vs. The Branch Manager, L&T Finance (F.A. No.888 of 2013) decided 04.03.2014 by the NCDRC

(iii) Surinder Singh vs. The New India Assurance Company (FA No.504 of 2013), decided by State Commission, Chandigarh.

9.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant reiterated the facts of the case. He argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the fora below and sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the Parties.

11.    Clearly, the primary dispute is about the seizure of the vehicle and whether the OP is responsible for its release from ARTO, Hathras. The complainant asserted that the OP should recover the vehicle, while the OP denied any responsibility for its seizure by ARTO Hathras, claiming that the vehicle was already returned to the complainant after payment. It is an admitted position that the vehicle was seized by the OPs on 23.10.2017 and the complainant had cleared all the dues on 27.10.2017. There is nothing on record to establish that the vehicle was handed over to the complainant before it was seized by the ARTO, Hatras. It is, however, the specific contention of the complainant that he did not get back the vehicle from the OP due to seizure of the same by ARTO, Hathras at 12.20 PM on 27.10.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission have examined the facts and evidence and passed detailed and well reasoned orders in the matter.  

12.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act, 2019, (which is pari materia to Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986) confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and scope for revisional jurisdiction is limited. On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the learned State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022 dated 21.01.2022, has held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited: -

"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

13.    Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

14.    In view of the foregoing deliberations, the Petitioner has not brought out anything substantial that warrants any interference with the detailed and reasoned orders passed by the learned District Forum dated 27.07.2018 and learned State Commission dated 12.06.2020 in the case.

15.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable. Therefore, award of Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation for mental agony, over and above the component of interest already awarded is untenable.

16.    In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned Counsels for both the parties and the established precedents by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter, the impugned Order dated 27.07.2018 in CC No.22/2018 passed by the learned District Forum, is modified with the following directions: -

ORDER

1. The Petitioners/Opposite Parties shall refund the amount paid by the Complainant for releasing the vehicle from ARTO, Hathras along with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of payment till its realization, within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay, the amount payable shall carry simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of expiry of one month till realization of the entire amount.

2. The Petitioners/Opposite Parties shall pay cost of litigation quantified as Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant/ Respondent, within one month from the date of this order.

3. The order awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- on account of mental agony is set aside.

16.    With the above orders, the instant Revision Petition No.721 of 2021 stands disposed of accordingly.

17.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.