JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the petitioner present.  Arguments heard. 

2.      Bishan Lal Patkar, the complainant  had purchased a Tata AC Van for a consideration of Rs.2,40,895/-.  The complainant had paid Rs.30,895/- as margin money and balance amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was got financed from Tata Motors Finance Ltd., opposite party No. 1 which was the zonal office  of opposite party No. 2.  It was agreed that the loan would be repayable in 47 EMI @ Rs.6,040/- during the period from 2.7.2007 to 2.5.2011.  The complainant made the payment of 39 installments.  The complainant was also to pay handling charges in the sum of Rs.73,880/-.  The total amount was Rs.2,83,880/-.  As per the agreement, the complainant was also liable to pay delay and other charges.  Therefore, the petitioner became a defaulter as on 5.2.2008 when a sum of Rs.17,580/- was the outstanding loan dues.  The vehicle was re-possessed.  However, the complainant gave assurance that he would clear off the outstanding dues.  The vehicle was released to him.  The complainant again committed default.  A legal notice was sent to him on 4.3.2010 for depositing outstanding dues but he failed to do so. 

-3-

Therefore, the vehicle was repossessed on 25.10.2010.  The opposite parties further issued a pre-sale notice to him on 29.10.2010.  As per foreclosure statement, an amount of Rs.94,087/- was outstanding as on 27.1.2011, which was demanded from the complainant but he failed to repay the same.  Consequently, the vehicle was sold for Rs.80,000/-. 

3.      The complaint was filed before the District Forum.  The District Forum directed that a sum of Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest @ 6%  w.e.f. the date of complaint be paid to the complainant.  The opposite party was also directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. 

4.      Aggrieved by that order, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission modified the order and directed that opposite party would pay a sum of Rs.80,000/-.  Remaining part of the order containing directions towards interest and compensation for mental agony would remain unaltered.  However, the request of the complainant for loss of income in the sum of Rs.1,01,680/- alongwith interest @6% was rejected.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

-4-

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stresses that there was loss of income and the petitioner should be granted the same.

7.      It must be borne in mind that the complainant has waddled out of the commitment made by him.  He should have paid the amount in time.  It is difficult to fathom why the people took the loan when they are unable to repay the same.  Such like people waste the time of the financial institutions and the consumer fora.  We would like to impose heavy costs on the petitioner for wasting our precious time, but learned counsel for the petitioner insists that he is very poor person.  Therefore, we refrain ourselves from imposing the costs.  He has already been awarded enough more than he deserves.

The revision petition is meritless, therefore, the same is dismissed.