Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent purchased a tipper truck in the year 1999 to run the business of transport of manganese and iron ores. To -2- purchase the truck, petitioner raised a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the petitioner. Petitioner collected ten cheques from the respondent in order to recover the loan. Copy of the agreement was not supplied to the respondent/complainant. Respondent was paying the installments regularly. On 10.3.2005, petitioner took away the vehicle forcibly from him. Respondent visited the office of the petitioner and was informed that two installments were still due against him. Respondent paid the same. Petitioner, however, did not release the vehicle. According to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent had paid the full amount due to 16.05.2005. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. along with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission by a detailed order dated 16.04.2009 admitted the appeal on a limited point regarding award of interest. Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing on 01.09.2009. The State Commission by the impugned order has confirmed the order passed by the District Forum. Before the State Commission, petitioner tried to argue some points which have not been dealt with in the order dated 01.09.2009 as the points which were sought to be raised, had already been dealt with in the order dated 16.04.2009. Since the appeal was admitted on limited point regarding interest, the State Commission has disposed of the appeal upholding the order of the District Forum maintaining the order of grant of interest @ 8%p.a. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the appeal had been admitted on a limited point regarding interest, the petitioner was entitled to argue the point regarding the interest only. In our view, the interest granted @ 8% is reasonable and does not call for any interference. Dismissed. | 
