ORDER (ORAL) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by HDFC Bank, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 13.02.2012, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.4745 of 2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 29.09.2010, passed by the Bangalore Urban III Addl. District Consumer Forum (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.483 of 2010 and consequently, dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner with costs, quantified at ₹2,000/-. In the first instance, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not settling the account for the loan raised by him for purchase of a Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycle and repossessing and selling the vehicle without due notice to him, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹24,000/- being the cost of the vehicle; a sum of ₹30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him and ₹10,000/- as costs of litigation. The District Forum had also directed that in case its order is not complied with within 30 days of the date of the order, the Petitioner shall be liable to pay to the Complainant interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount of ₹64,000/-. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Bank has strenuously urged that the finding recorded by both the Fora below to the effect that the vehicle in question had been repossessed without -3- notice to the Complainant, is vitiated for the simple reason that as a matter of fact, the vehicle had been voluntarily surrendered by the Complainant and due procedure for putting the vehicle to auction had been adopted by the Insurance Company. Having perused the documents on record and the pleadings, we are of the view that the afore-said concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora below, to the effect that no notice was issued by the Bank to the Complainant either before repossessing the vehicle or before its auction, does not suffer from any Jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of our limited Revisional Jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the said finding. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the fact that admittedly, there were some defaults on the part of the Complainant in depositing the Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) with the Bank against the loan, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Fora below to the Complainant, in addition to the refund of the total cost of the vehicle, is on the higher side and the default stipulation for payment of interest on the said sum of ₹64,000/- is not justified. Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent that in addition to the refund of the cost price of the vehicle, the Petitioner Bank shall be liable to pay to the Complainant a lump sum compensation of ₹20,000/- instead of ₹30,000/- as directed by the Fora below. The direction regarding payment of interest on the said amount is also deleted. It is pointed out that 50% of the amount, as awarded by the lower Fora, which was deposited by the Petitioner before the State Commission, has already been released to the Complainant, who is present in person. The balance amount due to the Complainant in terms -4- of this order shall be remitted by the Bank to him directly by means of a Demand Draft, drawn in his favour, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the balance amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till actual realization. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. |
