1.      This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the order of Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (‘the State Commission’) dated 21.09.2017 in FA No. 312 of 2013, wherein the Appeal by Tata Motor Finance Ltd. was allowed and Appeal No.258 of 2013 by the Complainant was dismissed, setting aside the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhojpur, Ara (“District Forum”) order in CC No.57 of 2008 dated 24.06.2013.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the original Complaint before the District Forum. Binod Kumar Yadav is referred to as the Complainant, Samrat Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. is referred to as the Opposite Party No.1 (OP-1) and Tata Motors Finance (Financer) is referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2 (OP-2).

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a bus Registration No.BR-3P-1263 for Rs.949969/- from OP-1 on 14.04.2008 for self-employment purposes and used it for transporting children of DAV School. The bus was financed by OP-2 for total loan of Rs. 7,60,000. The complainant alleged discrepancies in payment and adjustment of amounts, including failure to give full discount promised on the purchase. The Respondents engaged in unfair trade practices and wrongful actions, including seizing the bus on two occasions, despite payments made by the complainant. The bus was seized on 04.07.2008 and again on 26.08.2008 by the agents of OP-2 in violation of court directions and amounts to deficiency in service. Being aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking relief for the wrongful seizure of his bus by OP-2. He requested for immediate release of the bus and compensation amounting to Rs.1,94,531 with 12% interest per annum, along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation, and costs.

4.      In reply before the District Forum, OP-1 (Seller) denied any deficiency in service in the sale of the bus. The complainant’s contentions regarding payment are related to OP-2. OP-2 (Financier) contended that the complainant defaulted instalment payment, justifying the seizure of the bus. The contract between them was purely commercial and does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. It denied any wrongdoing or deficiency in service.

5.      The District Forum in its Order dated 24.06.2013, partly allowed the complaint with the following order:

“8. So far as on the basis of Annexure 7/Exhibit A6, statement of the complainant that on the purchase of the bus as per Annexure A6, Respondent No.1 was bound to give discount of Rs.64,000/- but discount of only Rs.26,531 was given, this thing is not appears to be correct according to this Exhibit. Because it is written on it that "discount scheme is valid till 29^th March 2008, otherwise also in this Exhibit A6, discount on the 32 seater bus is written only Rs.24,000. Complainant had purchased the bus on 12.4.08. In these circumstances allegations leveled by the complainant against Respondent No.1 for taking the more cost of the vehicle and giving less discount is not proved nor complainant succeeded to prove the same. Therefore, after considering the above facts this Forum reached to the conclusion in common view that Respondent No.1 has not committed any negligence of deficiency in service in selling the bus to the complainant or taking the money.

9. So far as allegation of the complainant is against the Respondent No.2 that this Respondent has without giving any notice to the complainant seized the bus twice and still bus is in the possession of miscreants of the Respondent No.2. These both things are admitted. In this reference Respondent No.2 has stated that after financing the vehicle complainant has not deposited the amount of installment and then vehicle was seized. In the evidence of cross examination of complainant this fact is proved in which he said that on which date made payment of the first installment is not remembered to me. I have not paid the second installment on time because my deposit was with the Company, therefore I did not deposit the second installment. I did not deposit the third installment. From which it is clear till the seizure of vehicle for first time complainant had not deposited any amount of the installment, which proof is that complainant has not produced any receipt for depositing the money. Respondent No. 2 has stated in para No.7 of his written statement that till 4.7.2008 amount of Rs.48,375/- was became outstanding which was not paid and hence on that day vehicle was seized and in para 8 of the reply he admitted that on 10.07.08 complainant had deposited Rs.25,000/- and on 26.7.08 deposited Rs. 17,800/, and thereafter vehicle was released. But complainant has as per his assurance did not deposit the reset amount and then again bus was seized. Respondent has in its reply or in the evidence of witness Nishgat Kumar did not produce any proof that he given any notice to the complainant for seizing the vehicle and seized the vehicle both times. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma & Or. 2008, CIJ 677 (SC) it was appropriated in remind financial institutions that they are bound by law and the recovery of loan or seizure of vehicles can only been done through legal means. Respondent No.2 had given the loan against the bus. In case complainant sit salient without paying the loan then the amount of the Respondent No.2 will sink, therefore he has right to seize the bus But in the lawful manner while giving notice and informing the complainant, on behalf of the complainant registered case No. 176/10 at police station Charpochri., from perusal of the same it appears that Respondent No.2 is using this bus, which was met with an accident at Sasaram Ara Road at the more of Romraon Village, Mahavir more, on 17.12.10 in the evening. It is clear from the same that Respondent no.2 is getting benefit from the bus of complainant. In the aforesaid circumstances this forum reached to the conclusion that Respondent No.2 has without giving notice to the complainant seized the bus in unlawful manner, and which is the unfair trade practice of Respondent no2 and is deficiency in service and I negligence. Therefore, this Forum

ORDER

that this case is maintainable against the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.2 is ordered/ directed that the amount was outstanding towards the complainant for installment of the vehicle as on 26.8.08, in which adjust the amount recovered from the complainant, and the outstanding installments as on 26.8.08, recover the same from complainant and released the bus to complainant and the further installment from 26.8.08, inform the same to the complainant each month that, the this installment is payable to the Respondent on such date of the month, as the date mentioned in the finance contract between the Respondent No.2 and the complainant. Complainant is also directed that from the date of release of the bus, deposit the installment on each month in the office of the Respondent, failing which in case of default of making payment of installment, he shall not have right to file such case. In case Respondent No.2 made any avoidance in receiving the payment of installment then complainant will pay the installment through money order to the Respondent No.2 through post. It is ordered and directed to Respondent No.2 that for doing unfair trade practice for seizing the vehicle of complainant without any notice, pay the exemplary compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, which shall be adjusted in the installment of complainant to Respondent No.2. It is also suggested to the complainant that as admitted by Respondent No. I in the reply, that registration amount of Rs. 10,000/- is lying with him, it should be taken back from Respondent No. I and pay to the Respondent No.2. In case despite of compliance of the above orders. Respondent No.2 did not comply this orders then in that event complainant shall have right to comply the order according to the established rules of law. Thus, final execution of the suit is made.

(Extracted from True Translated Copy)

6.      Dissatisfied with the District forum order, the complainant filed FA No. 258 of 2013 and the OP-2 Tata Motor Finance Ltd. filed FA No.312 of 2013. The State Commission vide order dated 21.09.2017 dismissed the FA No.258 of 2013 filed by the Complainant and allowed the FA No.312 of 2013 filed by the OP-2 with following order:

  “Counsel for the appellant in appeal no. 312 of 2013 is present and respondent files supplementary affidavit. Heard. Appeal no. 312 of 2013 is filed by the financer (Tata Motor Finance) assailing the order for payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation upon holding the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant (Tata Motor Finance) for taking possession of the vehicle finance by it but without notice.

  The appellant submits that the loan was provided to the complainant on the terms and conditions agreed upon. One of the terms of the contract is on failure to pay an installment the possession of the vehicle can be taken by the financer. As such there could not be deficiency in service if the possession of the vehicle is on failure to pay the installment. No notice was required to be given as per the agreement. In appeal no. 258 of 2013 filed by the complainant primary grievance is that vehicle could not have been repossessed without notice.

  We have perused the impugned order in the light of the respective case of the parties. The matter is covered by the terms of the agreement. On failure, to pay installment towards repayment of the loan, action taken by the financer in repossessing the vehicle this action cannot be faulted. As such awarding of compensation does not appear me justified.

  In the result, we set aside the direction to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- by Tata Motor Finance to the complainant. It goes without saying that complainant is with liberty to get his loan account settled with the Tata Motor Finance the financer of the vehicle in question.

  In the result, the appeal no. 258 of 2013 is dismissed and appeal no. 312 of 2013 is allowed.”

7.      Being aggrieved by the Impugned order dated 21.09.2017 of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition bearing No.1654 of 2018.

8.      Upon notice to Respondents No. 1 and 2, none appeared despite service by way of publication. Therefore, vide order dated 23.05.2023, the Respondents No. 1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte.

9.      In the instant Revision Petition, the Petitioner/Complainant mainly raised the following contentions:

A.  The State Commission erred in law and the decision was based on inferential conclusions without evidence, leading to miscarriage of justice. It misread the evidence, law and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission. He relied on Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijaylaxmi, III (2007) CPJ 101 NC in which it was held that repossession of vehicle using force is impermissible. And Dr. Amitabh Verma vs Commissioner of Police & Ors 100(2002)DLT, where guidelines for repossession were laid down, including informing the hirer about pending dues and sending a pre-repossession notice.

B. The State Commission wrongly presumed that no notice was required before repossession. He received no communication from the respondents stating that he was a defaulter.

C. After seizing the vehicle, the OP-2 used it for personal gain without his permission causing significant harm and financial loss, which the State Commission failed to appreciate.

D. He was misled regarding additional payments and discounts applicable at the time of purchase were not given. He repeatedly requested account details from the respondents but received no proper response, leading to financial hardship.

E. The respondents violated loan cum hypothecation agreement by illegally seizing the vehicle using force, despite assurances regarding adjustments to the first two instalments. It was used for their own benefit without the petitioner’s consent, making wrongful gains while the petitioner suffered financially. It shall be returned in same condition and loan account be settled.

F. The State Commission’s decision to allow Appeal No. 312 of 2013 and dismiss Appeal No. 258 of 2013, including the reversal of the Rs.10,000 compensation order lacked reasoning and would encourage respondents to engage in similar unlawful acts.

10.    In his arguments, learned Counsel for Petitioner/ Complainant reiterated the grounds of Revision Petition and asserted that the petitioner is an unemployed individual who purchased a bus for self-employment under a Loan Cum Hypothecation Guarantee Agreement on 12.04.2008. He made Rs.1,88,969 down payment out of the total price of Rs.9,48,969. The remaining was to be paid in 47 monthly instalments of Rs.23,325. Despite making payments, his vehicle was forcibly seized by local goons hired by OP-2, without any notice, in violation of the principles of natural justice. After seizing the vehicle, OP-2 used it for personal gain without his consent. He paid Rs.10,000 on 11.01.2008, Rs.40,000 on 17.01.2008 and Rs. 30,000 on 08.02.2008 as advance payments for booking the vehicle.  He was promised a discount of Rs.64,000, but was only granted partial discount of Rs.37,469, and Rs.30,000 insurance receipt was never provided. Despite these payments, the bus was forcibly repossessed without any notice of default, as mandated by Clause 18 of the agreement. The first unlawful seizure of the vehicle took place without notice. On 26.08.2008, the vehicle was seized again by OP-2 using force and musclemen, while school children were in the bus. This was without giving any notice or determining whether he defaulted on payments. During the pendency of CC No. 57 of 2008, OP-2 continued using the vehicle for their own commercial gain. While he deposited Rs.2,20,500, OP-2 acknowledged only Rs.1,90,500. This discrepancy, along with the forceful seizure, caused him significant financial hardship. Clause 18 of the Loan Cum Hypothecation Cum Guarantee Agreement mandates the issuance of a written notice before taking possession of the vehicle, but no such notice was ever given. OP-2 unlawfully seized the vehicle, without following the due process of law, in gross violation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines regarding repossession by financiers. A financier cannot seize a vehicle without following legal process and in violation of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is impermissible for financiers to seize a vehicle with the help of goons, especially while the matter is sub judice. The State Commission erred in holding that no notice was required before repossession, which contradicts settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the NCDRC. He sought OP-2 to release the vehicle seized in its original condition or provide a brand new vehicle. Alternatively, OP-2 shall pay Rs.3,14,100 (expenses for purchase, insurance, EMI, parking charges etc.) along with 24% interest from the date of seizure, compensation and costs. He relied on the following precedents in support of his arguments:

1. Tata Finance Ltd. Vs. Francis Soeiro, F.A. No.720 of 2003, decided on 22.02.2008, by the NCDRC;
2. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi, III (2007) CPJ 161 NC;
3. Dr. Amitabh Varma vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors., 100 (2002) DLT 581;
4. Manager, Indusland Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Abani Kanta Das & Anr. R.P. No.3945 of 2011, decided on 11.01.2021 by the NCDRC.

11.    None appeared for the respondents despite notice and, therefore, the respondents were placed ex-parte vide order dated 23.05.2023.

12.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders passed by the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainant.

13.    The main issue to be determined is whether there was a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by OPs with respect to the vehicle loan to the complainant and its repossession? If so, what is the liability of the OPs in this regard?

14.    The Petitioner purchased a bus for self-employment under a Loan Cum Hypothecation Cum Guarantee Agreement on 12.04.2008. He made Rs.1,88,969 down payment, out of the total vehicle price of Rs.9,48,969 and Rs.7,60,000 was the loan financed by OP-2 to be paid in 47 EMIs of Rs. 23,325. He also paid Rs.30,000 for Insurance. Due to alleged defaults in paying EMIs, the vehicle was allegedly seized forcibly by local goons of OP-2, without notice and was used for personal gains by OP-2 without his consent. He paid Rs.10,000 on 11.01.2008; Rs.40,000 on 17.01.2008; and Rs.30,000 on 08.02.2008 as advance payments for booking the vehicle. He was promised a discount of Rs.64,000, but was only given Rs.37,469 and Rs.30,000 insurance receipt was not provided. It is the assertion of the complainant that despite payments made to secure its release, OP-2 failed to return the vehicle. Further, on 26.08.2008, the vehicle was again seized allegedly by using force and musclemen, while school children were in the bus. This was without any notice or determining whether he defaulted EMIs.

15.    It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant was financed by OP-2. It is the assertion of OP that the complainant was in default in payment of certain instalments. Even if the complainant was in default of payments, Para 18 of the agreement entered into between the parties stipulates that, before repossession notice should be issued to the complainant notifying the dues.  However, no issue of any such notice prior to seizure has been established and thus, this provision of the agreement was not complied with by OP-2. It is settled position in law that, if due process of law is not followed, then the seizure is illegal. If the seizure is illegal, the entire process is treated to be illegal. In the instant case, the vehicle was repossessed but no notice of sale has been served on the complainant.

16.    As regards repossession of vehicles due to defaults in repaying the loans, the guidelines were given in 2002 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amitabh Verma vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. Para 28 of the same is reproduced below:

“Before we part with this judgment, we would like to observe that a large number of similar cases are being filed in Courts. Therefore, apart from deciding the controversy involved in this case, we deem it appropriate to formulate general guidelines so that similar problems are not to be encountered or repeated in similar cases. 

(I) The finance companies must inform the hirers regarding the details of Instalments due and payable by a written communication. 

(II) Even before repossession another written notice must be sent to the hirers and only thereafter the vehicles be repossessed. 

(III) Finance companies are restrained from stopping the running vehicles or the roads and forcibly pulling out the driver and take possession of the vehicle against all provisions of law.”

17.    The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in of M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Civil Appeal No.5622 of 2019 decided on 1.10.2020 wherein it has held as under:

“87. The question raised by the financier in this appeal, that is, whether the financier is the real owner of the vehicle, which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, has to be answered in the affirmative in view of the law enunciated by this Court in Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 SCC 417 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1557 , K.L. Johar & Co., K.L. Johar & Co. v. CTO, AIR 1965 SC 1082 and Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 400 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 513 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 51. The financier being the owner of the vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, there can be no impediment to the financier taking possession of the vehicle when the hirer does not make payment of instalments/hire charges in terms of the hire-purchase agreement. However, such repossession cannot be taken by recourse to physical violence, assault and/or criminal intimidation. Nor can such possession be taken by engaging gangsters, goons and musclemen as socalled recovery agents.”

…

“90.    In a case where the requirement to serve notice before repossession is implicit in the hire purchase agreement, non-service of proper notice could tantamount to deficiency of service for breach of the hire purchase agreement giving rise to a claim in damages. The complainant consumer would be entitled to compensatory damages, based on the assessment of the loss caused to the complainant by reason of the omission to give notice.  Where there is no evidence of any loss to the hirer by reason of omission to give notice, nominal damages may be awarded.”

18.    In the recent judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Dhananjay vs. The Union of India through Secretary Department of Finance and Commerce, New Delhi. & Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3456 of 2021 and other connected matters, decided on 19.05.2023 wherein it has been observed and directed as under:

“64. Having discussed the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the laws on the subject, this Court would make it clear that so far as the allegations against the Banks and Financial Institutions that they had forcibly seized/ repossessed the vehicles is concerned, this Court, instead of dwelling much upon that issue in the present proceeding, leaves it open for the Investigating Agency to look into the complaints of the petitioners and investigate them independently and in accordance with law. This Court has mainly concentrated on the plea of the Banks and Financial Institutions that they can seize and repossess the vehicle without taking recourse to law and legal procedures as envisaged under the Act of 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder. Thus, even as the allegations of forceful seizure and possession has been taken note of, the same would not come in the way of an independent investigation. This Court has found that at least in one case (C.W.J.C. No. 16155 of 2021) a first information report being Sadar P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023 dated 08.01.2023 has been lodged by the petitioner’s husband. In case other petitioners have also lodged any complaint with the respective police station, the same will be registered and duly investigated. It is still open to the petitioners to lodge their respective complaint with the jurisdictional police station within whose jurisdiction the vehicle in question has been seized and repossessed allegedly by use of force.

65. Since this Court has come to a conclusion that the covenants in the loan agreement of these cases are at best creating a ‘security interest’ in the ‘secured asset’ i.e. the vehicle in favour of the Banks and Financial Institutions, as the case may be, this Court directs that the Banks/Financial Institutions who are contesting respondents in these cases shall henceforth, exercise their power to seize and repossess the vehicle only in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2002, and the Rules framed thereunder and the RBI guidelines. Their right to seize or repossess is not in question, it is the manner in which it is being exercised is illegal, hence, they cannot continue with the same.

66. The Superintendent of Police of all the districts in the State of Bihar are directed to ensure that within their jurisdiction no recovery agent of the Bank and Financial Institution may take the law into their hands, intercept the vehicles on way and takes possession of the vehicle in default without an order of the competent court of law. Any seizure/repossession of the vehicle in default may be given effect to only in accordance with the law and the procedure established by law;

67. In all such cases where the vehicles have not been sold, the petitioner(s) and the Bank/Financial Institution through it’s authorized representative shall sit together and reconcile the account to determine the amount due in the loan account, however, the Bank/Financial Institution shall not charge any interest for the period during which the vehicle remained in seizure and they will treat the Covid-19 period in accordance with lockdown notification. Such reconciliation be made within a period of four weeks from today whereupon the petitioner(s) shall pay 30% of the outstanding amount and get release of the vehicle after giving an undertaking that he will pay the rest of the 70% of the outstanding amount with applicable interest from the date of handing over the possession of the vehicle till the date of payment in suitable installments as may be decided by the Banks/Financial Institutions. In the meantime, the petitioner(s) shall continue to pay the current EMI, failing which it will be open to the Bank/Financial Institution to proceed against the petitioner(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder to re-possess the vehicle.

68. In the cases where the vehicle has been sold to a third party and the Bank/Financial Institution is not in a position to restore the vehicle, they would be liable to pay the petitioner(s) to the extent of the value of the vehicle(s) as per their insurance value on the date of their seizure. The said amount shall be adjusted against the outstanding vehicle loan and thereafter if any surplus comes out the same will be made available to the petitioner. It will be open for the petitioners, if so advised to challenge the accounts furnished by the Banks/Financial Institutions and claim any compensation etc. for the loss arising out of seizure of their respective vehicles before appropriate court/forum.

69. Since the action of the Banks/Finance Companies are found illegal, the petitioners who have been made to contest this case shall be entitled for cost of litigation. Accordingly, this Court directs that each of the contesting respondents i.e. Banks/Financial Institutions would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) as cost of litigation to the respective writ petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.

70. These writ applications are disposed of accordingly.”

19.    It is the allegation of the complainant that without giving him any notice, OP-2 seized the bus twice and it is still in OP-2 possession. It is the contention of OP-2 that after financing the vehicle, complainant failed to pay EMIs and thus the vehicle was seized. In reply before the learned District Forum, OP-2 clarified that as on 04.07.2008 Rs.48,375/- was outstanding against the complainant and thus the vehicle was seized on 04.07.2008. On 10.07.2008 he deposited Rs.25,000/- and on 26.07.2008 he paid Rs.17,800/, and the vehicle was released. As per OP-2, due to his failure to remit payments, the vehicle was again seized. While the right of the financiers to seize the vehicle for payment defaults is undisputed, compliance with legal process is mandatory. The methods of failure to issue mandatory notice, use of force, use of musclemen etc are expressly disallowed. The complaint reveals that against the seizure, the complainant had registered case No 176/10 against OP-2 at Police Station Charpochri. The same reveals that while the vehicle remained in the possession of OP-2 it had met with an accident at Sasaram Ara Road near Romraon Village on 17.12.2010. Considering the pleadings and facts of the case, the learned District Forum concluded that, without giving notice to the complainant, OP-2 had seized the bus in unlawful manner, and such action constitutes unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.

20.    For the reasons discussed above and the established precedents, the impugned order of the learned State Commission dated 21.09.2017 and the findings of the learned District Forum dated 24.06.2013 deserve to be sustained. At the same time, however, it is a matter of record that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 14.04.2008 for a total price of Rs.9,48,969. Of which, he paid Rs.1,88,969 down payment and Rs.30,000 towards insurance of the vehicle. Rs.7,60,000 was the loan financed by OP-2. Therefore, other than loan granted by OP-2, the complainant had personally paid Rs.2,18,969 towards the purchase of the vehicle and insurance. For the reasons in dispute, it is admitted position that the said vehicle was seized by the OP-2 on 14.07.2008 and again on 26.08.2008 and thereafter the complainant never had possession of the same. As a consequence, as on date, the vehicle is over 16 years vintage and its lifetime either had already lapsed or about to lapse. Therefore, repossession of the vehicle to the complainant after payment of loan amount dues is incongruent and defeats the very scope and purpose of resolving the dispute. Therefore, in the absence of scope for repossession, OP-2 is liable to reimburse the complainant towards the costs incurred for purchase of the vehicle in question as well as compensate him for its illegal repossession as follows:

ORDER

1. The Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay the complainant Rs.2,18,969 towards purchase of the vehicle along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from 14.04.2008 till the date of payment, within one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond one month, the simple interest applicable for such extended period shall be @ 12% per annum.

2. The Opposite Party No. 2 is also directed to pay the complainant Rs.1,00,000 as lumpsum compensation towards improprieties in seizing of the vehicle in question, within one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond one month, the simple interest applicable for such delay shall be @ 12% per annum.

21.    The Revision Petition No.1654 of 2018 filed by the complainant is accordingly disposed of

22.    There shall be no order as to costs.

23.    All other pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.