Respondent/complainant had purchased a Tata Safari after availing loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from the petitioner, which he was required to pay in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.12,526/-.  Respondent defaulted in making the payment.  Petitioner repossessed the vehicle, aggrieved against which, the respondent filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that the petitioner had repossessed the vehicle without issuing Notice to him.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and gave the following directions :

“1. The respondent will handover the possession of the vehicle bearing No.MP 19T 1873 to the plaintiff, in his residence, in good and running condition within 30 days and receive the acknowledgement thereof.

2. The respondent will pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a compensation to the plaintiff being the unfair trade practices adopted against the plaintiff.

3. If the respondent fails to obey the orders within the period of 30 days then the respondent will pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month till the delivery of the vehicle is given to the plaintiff.

4. If the respondent is failed or find impossible to hand over the possession of the vehicle, then the respondent will be liable to pay the cost of the vehicle Rs.7,27,272/- after deducting the overdue amount outstanding as on 30.5.2008 the day on which the possession of the vehicle was taken.

5. If the respondent fails to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- to the plaintiff within 30 days then the respondent will be liable to pay the interest from 26.8.2008 @ 12% on the aforesaid amount.

6. The respondent will also pay a sum of Rs.500/- being the cost of this case.”

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been disposed of by the State Commission by observing thus :

“While we approve the above direction, the direction of payment of Rs.5,000/- per month contained in clause No.3, to our mind is not justified.  Thus, the condition for making payment of Rs.5,000/- per month till the custody of the vehicle is given to the complainant, is set aside.”

          Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition. 

          On a contention being raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission, being the final court of fact, should have recorded some reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at, we issued a limited Notice to the respondent as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

          We find substance in this contention.  State Commission is the final court of fact.  It should have recorded some reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at.  State Commission, being the first court of fact, is required to go into the questions of fact as well as law, which the State Commission has not done.  Since the State Commission has endorsed the view taken by the District Forum without recording any reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.  State Commission should record its own reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. 

          Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 8.4.2011.