ORDER

The present Revision Petition Nos.4133 and 4134 of 2014 are filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) by Mrs.Seema Jeetendra Longani (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner/ Complainant) against M/s Citicorp Finance India Ltd. and M/s Sterling Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No. 1/ Finance Company and Respondent No. 2 respectively) challenging the Impugned Order dated 22.08.2014 of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in FA No.408 of 2009 and FA No.457 of 2009. FA No.408 of 2009 filed by the Complainant was disallowed whereas FA No.457 of 2009 filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed. Further, the State Commission had dismissed the Order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in CC/32/2009.

2. Since the facts and question of law involved in both the Petitions are similar, therefore, these two Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No.4133 of 2014 is treated as the lead case.

3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that, on 20.10.2006, the Complainant purchased a Tata Truck bearing Registration No.MH-17-T-7683. The Complainant had obtained two loans from Respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs.10,10,091/- and Rs.1,01,984/- both with 41 instalments. The Complainant paid a total of Rs.6,61,516/-, covering 20 and 21 instalments for each loan, respectively. The Complainant further spent Rs.1,85,000/- in body building of the truck, accessories and RTO registration, etc. The Respondent No.1 on 04.02.2008 forcibly took the possession of vehicle from Indore as one instalment of loan was due.

4. Aggrieved by the above acts of the Respondents, the Petitioner/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint in the District Forum, bearing Consumer Case No. 32/2009, which was allowed. The District Forum vide Order dated 13.04.2009, held as under:

a. Complaint of Complainant’s is hereby partly allowed.

b. Within the 30 days, the Opponent No.1 shall:—

i. Compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousands) be given to complainant with interest thereon at the rate of 10% p.a. from the filing of original complaint.

ii. Except the column No. “A” there is any due balance against the complainant, the said due amount be shown as “additional compensation amount” and said be debited in loan account of complainant. And Loan amount of complainant be declared as “Nil”

iii. An amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) be given to complainant as a mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousands only) be given to the complainant as a cost of proceeding.

c. No order is passed against the Opponent no. 2.

d. Order be informed to concerned parties.

5. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the First Appeal being Appeal No.408 of 2009 for enhancement of compensation and Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.457 of 2009 to set aside the Order of the District Forum in the State Commission.

6. The State Commission vide its Order dated 22.08.2014 in both the Cross Appeals held as under:

“1. Appeal No.457/09 filed by finance company is allowed.

2. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is quashed and set aside.

3. Consumer complaint stands dismissed.

4. Appeal No.408/09 filed by complainant is dismissed.

5. No order as to cost.

6. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.”

7. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant filed two Revision Petitions i.e. RP/4133/2014 and RP/4134/2014 before this Commission with the prayer to set aside the common Order dated 22.08.2014 in FA/408/2009 and FA/457/2009 respectively.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ Comp