IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional Jurisdiction – In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by Forum & SC, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

ORDER

The present Revision Petitions (RP) have been filed under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 18.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 405 of 2015 in which order dated 19.05.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Forum VI, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.799 of 2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for:—

a. Enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the State Commission vide order dated 18.01.2019 in RP No. 895 of 2019

b. Setting aside the order dated 18.01.2019 of the State Commission in RP No. 1461 of 2019

2. In RP No. 1416 of 2019, the Revision Petitioner was Appellant before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum. In RP No. 895 of 2019, the Petitioner herein was the Appellant before the State Commission. For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 10.02.2020. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 18.01.2024 (Complainant) and 09.10.2023 respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that complainant got financed a commercial vehicle Ashok Leyland heavy goods vehicle for a loan amount of Rs.16,55,000/- vide loan agreement with the OP. The said loan was to be paid in 47 monthly equal instalments of Rs.45,600/- each. It is the case of the Complainant that from the beginning of the purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle got some major fault and for that complainant had to bear the huge losses, due to which complainant could not pay the instalment for the month of September on time but later he made the instalment. During the month of October-November, he could not deposit full instalment and sought time from the bank, which the bank granted and accepted the instalment on 23.11.2012.

4. It is further the case of the Complainant that on 25.11.2012 when the said vehicle reached Haidargarh, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, the employee of the Bank alongwith 8-10 unknown musclemen forcefully stopped the said vehicle and repossessed the vehicle. The Bank on the same day issued notice of sale of truck and sold the truck in March. The complainant went to recover the truck but in vain. Complainant filed civil suit for directing the bank to deliver back the truck to him. The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on the ground that suit had become infructuous as bank has already sold the truck. Being aggrieved of the said act of the OP, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 19.05.215 allowed the complaint of the Complainant. Being aggrieved, the OP preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 18.01.2019 modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that OP was directed to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved of the said order of the State Commission, both the Complainant and OP have come before this Commission by way of the above RPs. Complainant has filed RP No. 895 of 2019 for seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the State Commission and OP has filed RP No. 1461 of 2019 for setting aside the order of the State Commission.

RP No. 895 of 2019

5. Petitioner (Complainant) has challenged the Order dated 18.01.2019 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) State Commission failed to appreciate that Petitioner had to bear the loss of about Rs.5,40,000/- @ Rs.60,000/- per month for restraining him from the use of said vehicle from December 2012 till September 2013 which is still going on.

(ii) State Commission failed to appreciate that after receiving the said vehicle,