Harish Tandon, J.

The order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in S.C. Case No. F.A. 68 of 2011 allowing the appeal in part and directed the compensation to be paid without recording any reasons and/or findings thereupon is assailed in this revisional application.

The opposite party no.1 took a loan of Rs.11 lakhs from the petitioner for purchase of a commercial vehicle (truck), and executed Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement on May 30, 2008 to be paid in monthly installments. Some installments are paid but thereafter a default was committed. The petitioner further alleged that while the said vehicle was plying between Haldia and Tata with loaded vegetable oil, it was intercepted and forcible possession of the said vehicle was taken by the petitioner. The opposite party no.1 lodged an FIR with the local police station and a case was registered against the petitioner. By an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, the trucks and goods were released and the possession was handed over to the opposite party no.1 but the papers for plying the vehicles have not been handed over. Subsequently the petitioner terminated the said Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement and recalled the loan.

The opposite party no.1 filed Title Suit No.23 of 2010 before the Fast Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tamluk claiming the following reliefs:

“a) a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the truck specifically described in the schedule below and the defendants have no right on the said truck;

b) a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the peaceful plying the truck;

c) a decree of accounting;

d) a decree of all costs;

e) a decree as your plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as per law and equity;”

In the said suit, an application for injunction was also taken out and an ad interim order of injunction was passed restraining the petitioner from taking possession of the said vehicle. After the service is effected in compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner appeared and filed an application under Section 5 & 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the parties to arbitration. The petitioner states that the said Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement contains a valid arbitration clause and, therefore, the Civil Court cannot entertain the said lis. By an order dated 4th December, 2010, the Trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner which was assailed in revision before the High Court in C.O. No. 438 of 2011. The said revisional application was ultimately allowed and the said revisional application was disposed of by directing the Trial Court to consider the said application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 & 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 afresh. The review application against the said order disposing of the revisional application also stood dismissed.

During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the opposite party no.1 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum in short) which gave rise to the registration of complaint case no. 105 of 2010 claiming the compensation for the alleged forcible possession of the vehicle in the following:

“a) Direct the opp. Parties to pay Rs. 4,48,444/- by way of damages caused due to the deficiency of service fully described in the schedule B below together with interest @ 12% per annum till realisation of the award money.

b) Direct the opp. parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- as special damages for causing mental suffering and damage of business credibility and good will of the complainant.

c) Costs of the suit.

d) Such other relief or relief to which the complainant is entitle under law and equity.”

The opposite party no.1 averred in the said complaint case that because of the forcible possession taken by the petitioner, the opposite party has suffered a damages and/or l