ORDER

1.     This revision petition assails the order dated 21.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.658 of 2016 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 12.02.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in CC No.102 of 2015. This order will also dispose of Revision Petition No.2803 of 2017 against order of the State Commission Punjab in FA/651/2016 dated 21.03.2017 which arises from the same order and is a cross appeal filed by the present respondent.

2.     The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant purchased a truck of Ashok Leyland, Model No.04/2011 which was registered as PB-46-K-1976 for a sum of Rs.19,87,000/-with finance from the petitioner bank for Rs.17,70,000/- which was to be repaid in 48 monthly instalments starting from 21.06.2011 to 21.04.2015. According to the petitioner, the respondent defaulted in payments and, therefore, the petitioner bank repossessed his vehicle on 23.11.2012. The respondent approached the District Forum in CC No.102 of 2015 alleging that the vehicle had been repossessed without notice to him and that he had been declared to be a defaulter also without notice. It was alleged that the vehicle was sold for Rs.7,80,000/- to a 3^rd party without notice. The District Forum, vide its order dated 12.07.2016 in favour of the respondent, upheld that the vehicle had been repossessed without notice and the opposite party had not been declared a defaulter. Placing reliance on this Commission’s order in L&T Finance Limited & Anr. Vs. Rampada, 2016(2) CLT page 343(NC) it was held by the District Forum that when the bank statement itself showed that an amount of Rs.1,45,545/- was due as on 18.05.2005, the outstanding of Rs.5,82,400/- shown as due in June, 2005 was inexplicable. The order of the District Forum reads as under:-

“As such opposite party is directed to re-deliver the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-46-K-1976 to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10000/- to the complainant and cost of litigation are assessed at Rs.2000/-. Compliance of this order can be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum”.

3.     The appeal filed before the State Commission by the present petitioner was also dismissed on the grounds that no evidence had been filed by opposite party regarding any demand notice before repossessing the vehicle and the manner in which the vehicle was sold was not transparent. It was concluded that the petitioner indulge in an illegal procedure to repossess the vehicle and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- of which Rs.25,000/- was to be paid to the Respondent and Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the Legal-Aid account of the State Commission. This revision impugns the order of the State Commission.

4.     I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record carefully.

5.     The Petitioner has contended that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period in section 24 A of the Act and relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002 in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 122 that the Consumer forum was duty-bound to determine whether the complaint was within limitation period and in Civil Appeal No. 2965 of 1992 in Deena (Dead) Through LRs. Vs. Bharat Singh (Dead) Through LRs. and Others in (2002) 6 SCC 336 that held that the time taken for proceeding with the suit without impleading the necessary party cannot be excluded since the party pursuing such a suit cannot be said to be acting in “good faith” to argue that the respondent had not impleaded the buyer of the v