JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/respondent took a loan of Rs.1,05,000/- from the petitioner for purchasing a machine.  The said loan was repayable in 48 installments of Rs.4760/- per month.  He having defaulted in payment of the installments, the vehicle was repossessed on 08.12.2011 and was later sold for a consideration of Rs.1,35,000/-.  Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint, seeking return of his vehicle alongwith compensation. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia alleged that the complainant was a defaulter he having failed to pay the installments for the loan taken by him.  It was further stated in the reply filed by the petitioner before the District Forum that the pre-possession notice as well as notice after seizure/surrender of the vehicle was also given to the complainant.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 25.09.2012, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.4,000/-.  It was further directed that the petitioner will not claim any amount from the complainant in receipt of the loan outstanding in his name. 

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

5.      The notice of the revision petition has been served upon the respondent but he has not appeared despite service.  I have therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  Though the petitioner has alleged issue of pre-possession notice to the complainant, the service of the said notice has not been proved.  The said notice is stated to have been sent through a courier and refused by the complainant.  However, no affidavit from the courier was filed to prove the alleged refusal of the notice.  Since the notice was not sent by registered post, there is no statutory presumption of the service of the notice, I therefore, hold that the service of the pre-possession notice has not been proved. 

6.      Even otherwise, the petitioner could not have taken a coercive action for seizure of the vehicle, even if the complainant had defaulted in payment of the outstanding installments.  The possession of the vehicle should have been taken through the due process of law.  That having not been done, the petitioner obviously was deficient in rendering service to the respondent. The compensation awarded to the complainant, therefore, was justified.  However, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the quantum of the compensation needs to be suitably reduced.  In my opinion, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, a flat compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant would be justifiable. 

7.      Further, the direction of the State Commission to the petitioner not to recover the outstanding amount in the loan account cannot be justified once compensation for the deficiency in the service is awarded to the complainant.  The learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions from Mr. Sunny Arora, an official of the petitioner company that the amount outstanding against the petitioner on the date the vehicle was repossessed was Rs.1,47,184/-, exclusive of cheque return charges, repossession charges and parking charges.  Out of that amount, a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- has already been realized by the petitioner by selling the vehicle.  The outstanding amount therefore, remained Rs.12,184/-. The petitioner therefore, is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.87,816/- after deducting the outstanding amount of Rs.12,184/- from the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The petitioner is also liable to pay Rs.4,000/-, towards the cost of litigation awarded by the State Commission.  The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.  Out of the amount stated to have been deposited with the District Form, the amount payable to the complainant shall be released to him whereas the balance amount if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.