Respondent/complainant purchased a Tata Indica car to earn his livelihood by means of self-employment on availing finance of Rs.2,63,100/- from the petitioner.  As per the loan agreement, the entire loan amount with interest was to be paid in 147 EMIs at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month and the last EMI was fixed at Rs.4,600/-.  The repayment period was from 19.8.2006 to 16.6.2010.  Respondent paid the instalments up to 31.3.2009.  He could not make the payment for April and May 2009.  Petitioner repossessed the car on 1.6.2009 on the ground of non-payment of the instalments without issuing any Notice to the respondent.  Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum that the vehicle had been forcibly repossessed by the petitioner without prior Notice.

          District Forum, on appraisal of the pleadings and evidence, directed the petitioner to release the vehicle on payment of 8 EMIs of Rs.5,500/- each by the respondent.  The future EMIs were to be paid on due dates failing which the petitioner was put at liberty to repossess the vehicle. 

          Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission.  On a statement made by the counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant that the complainant would make payment of 8 EMIs as per directions issued by the District Forum within one month and the rest of the amount in respect of hypothecated vehicle shall be paid within a period of 6 months in equated monthly instalments.  The first instalment in respect of 8 EMIs shall commence from 1.8.2010.  The State Commission, in order to settle the dispute finally, after recording the following statement made by the counsel for the respondent :

“It is submitted by Mr.S.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/appellant in F.A. No.191/2010 that after much endeavour, the complainant is ready and willing to make payment of 8 EMIs as has directed by the District Forum within one month from today and the rest of the amount in respect of the hypothecated vehicle shall be paid within a period of 6 months in 6 equal instalments.  The 1^st instalment in respect of 8 equated instalments shall commence from 1^st August 2010.”

disposed of the appeals by giving the following directions :

“In our considered view, it would be just and proper arrangement for recovery of the dues in respect of the hypothecated vehicle of the complainant, which was repossessed by the opposite parties and we hope and trust that the opposite parties would abide by our order and release the vehicle in favour of the complainant on receipt of 8 EMIs, which is likely to be paid by the 1^st week of July 2010.  After receipt of the 8 EMIs, which would start from the month of July 2010, the opposite parties would do well to issue NOC in favour of the complainant without making any other demand.  Since at the admission stage, the matter stands disposed of, there is no necessity of any further hearing of the appeal.  The First Appeal bearing Nos. 191 of 2010 and 238 of 2010 stand disposed of.”

          Counsel for the petitioner had agreed to make payment of 8 EMIs as directed by the District Forum within one month and rest of the amount within a period of 6 months in 6 equal instalments.  The vehicle has been ordered to be released on the receipt of 8 instalments meaning thereby that thereafter the respondent shall make the payment of the balance amount in 6 equal instalments.  By this process, the wrong committed by the petitioner of taking the forcible possession of the vehicle has been corrected without causing any loss to the petitioner.  It is not disputed before us that the petitioner has possessed the vehicle without any Notice to the respondent.

          We decline to interfere with the impugned order, which is just and fair, and dismiss the Revision Petition with no order as to costs.