IMPORTANT POINT
Valuation of consignment must be based upon documentary evidence and not on mere conjectures and surmises.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

In July 2006, the respondent-complainant, Simarjit Singh had availed a loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- from the appellant, IndusInd Bank Limited for financing a truck. The loan was repayable in equal monthly instalments of Rs. 35,150/-. The respondent committed default in payment of three instalments due in October 2007, November 2007 and February 2008. Consequently, the Bank had issued demand notice dated 12th March 2008 for payment of Rs. 1,39,335/-. Thereupon, it is accepted, the respondent had paid Rs. 1,04,200/- on 24th March 2008, Rs. 35,150/- on 6th May 2008 and Rs. 36,000/- on 31st May 2008. Accordingly, Rs. 8,19,300/- was paid by 31st May 2008, while as per the instalment schedule, the respondent was required to pay only Rs. 8,08,000/- up to June 2008.

2. Despite the respondent not being in arrears, the truck of the respondent with loaded cargo of timber, going from Gandhi Dham, Gujarat to Srinagar was stopped near village Bhasaur by about 10- 12 persons on 3rd July 2008. They then forcibly took physical possession of the truck and the timber.

3. Thereupon, the respondent preferred Consumer Complaint No. 344 of 2008 alleging deficiency in service before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, which was dismissed vide order dated 04th December 2008. Thereafter, Appeal No. 11 of 2009 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab ¹ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘SCDRC’] was treated/converted into original complaint bearing Special Consumer Complaint No. 344 of 2008, which complaint was allowed vide order dated 26th October 2018, with the following directions :

“(i) to pay Rs 10,80,000/- being the value of the truck, in question, as on the date of repossession, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repossession of the vehicle, in question i.e. 05.07.2008 till realization;

(ii) to pay Rs 20,00,000/- being the value of the timber loaded in the truck, in question, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repossession of the vehicle, in question i.e. 05.07.2008 till realization;

(iii) to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 3,000/- per month for the loss of livelihood suffered by the complainant for want of plying the truck, in question, for all these years, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repossession i.e. 05.07.2008 till realization; and

(iv) to pay Rs 40,000/- as litigation expenses.”

4. The appellant Bank and its Chairman moved Revision Petition bearing No. 187 of 2019 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, ² [Hereinafter referred as ‘NCDRC’] which has been dismissed vide the order dated 20th July 2021, now assailed before us.

5. The Bank had taken the stand before the SCDRC and the NCDRC that the respondent had voluntarily surrendered the truck. The foras for good reasons have rejected this plea. It was evident that the respondent had deposited Rs. 4,69,323/- as margin money and had already paid more amount than required under the payment schedule. The assertion of the Bank that the respondent had taken another loan of Rs. 8,77,000/- vide Loan Account No. JL 004701H and had defaulted in payment of the instalments therein was held to be inconsequential for the present case as the two transactions were unrelated and different.

6. This Court, while issuing notice vide order dated 17th September 2021, has recorded that the document(s) relied on by the Bank evidencing alleged surrender of the truck by the respondent was held to be fabricated by the SCDRC. This being a finding of fact, would not be interfered by this Court at this stage. The notice was limited to the direction assessing Rs. 20,00,000/- as the value of the timber loaded on the truck.

7. The orders dated 26th October 2018 of the SCDRC and 20th July 2021 of the NCDRC are silent on the value of timber and have merely gone by the figure mentioned by the respondent in the complaint. The respondent did