ORDER (ORAL)

        Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act”), by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 06.01.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.194 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 19.10.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sultanpur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.137 of 2004 and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein. By the said order, the District Forum, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in repossessing and auctioning the subject vehicle, namely, Marshal Deluxe Jeep, financed by the Petitioner, by use of muscle power and without due notice, had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant: (i) a sum of ₹3,20,227/-, constituting the total amount deposited by the Complainant towards the cost of the vehicle; (ii) simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of the Complaint; (iii) compensation of ₹5,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him; and, (iv) ₹1,000/- as cost of litigation.

        When the case had come up for motion hearing on 21.04.2017, after addressing us for a while, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had sought adjournment to seek instructions as to what “appropriate steps” as pleaded before the lower Fora, were taken by the Petitioner before putting the vehicle to auction, pursuant to the notice dated 16.12.2008 issued to the Complainant. Again, as prayed, on 01.08.2017, one week’s further time for the said purpose was granted to the Petitioner by way of last opportunity. When the case is now taken up for consideration, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that as per the instruction, the entire record of the case is not traceable and, therefore, the requisite information cannot been furnished to him. He, however, asserts that the auction had been conducted by the Petitioner Company in a transparent manner.

        Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit.

        While affirming the finding returned by the District Forum to the effect that no due notice was given by the Petitioner to the Complainant either before repossessing the vehicle or putting it to auction, the State Commission has made the following observations:

        “It is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken a loan of ₹3,00,000/- from the respondent to purchase a Marshal Jeep.  The loan amount was to be repaid in 33 monthly installments each of ₹11,750/-.  It is also evident from the record the complainant defaulted in making the timely payment of the installments.  It is also admitted that the Appellant repossessed the said vehicle and auctioned it very quickly.  But it is also evident that no prior notice of repossession was given to the complainant.  No information of its auction was given to the complainant.  The amount of auction sale was also not communicated to the complainant.  For the first time the sale price was made public only after filing of the complaint and that too through the written statement/objections in the complaint case that it was sold for a sum of ₹240,000/-.  Excess amount of the sale proceeds was also not returned to the complainant.” (Emphasis supplied)

        Having come to the said conclusion, the State Commission dealt with the question of compensation awarded by the District Forum, as follows:

      “In the instant case the vehicle was snatched away by the muscleman of the Appellants and auctioned.  Before snatching the vehicle, no notice was served upon the Respondent-Complainant.  The copies of the other notices have also not filed as a piece of evidence before the District Forum.  The Complainant was not informed about the auctioning of the vehicle and also about the amount of its sale proceeds. It caused a lot financial loss to the complainant and ruined his means of livelihood.  As the vehicle has been sold out through auction, it was not possible to return the vehicle, in these circumstances, there was no other way out to compensate the complainant but to pay the sum as awarded by the learned District Forum.  There is no error in the impugned Judgment of the learned District Forum and no need to interfere in it.” (Emphasis supplied)

        In the light of the afore-extracted findings of fact, which are not under challenge as being perverse on any ground whatsoever, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the order impugned in this Revision Petition warranting interference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction.

        Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limini accordingly.