A PALANIVEL Vs. INDUSIND BANK AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 20.2.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai ('State Commission' for short) in F. A. No.336 of 2011 and F. A. No.507 of 2010. By its impugned order, the State Commission partly allowed F.A. No.507 of 2010 filed by the respondents against the order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the District Forum, Salem and dismissed F.A No.336 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for enhancement in the amount of compensation.

(2.) THE factual matrix of this case are that the petitioner who is the original complainant in this case obtained some financial assistance from the OPs for purchase of a two -wheeler vehicle for which he was required to pay equated monthly instalment of Rs.2083/ - for 24 months to repay. The vehicle was duly registered with Registration No.TN 30P 6963 but after the registration, the OPs received the original RC book, insurance certificate, Form 35 and one original key from the local dealers which had sold the vehicle to the petitioner/complainant. After the entire amount of loan had been repaid by the petitioner, the 3rd OP on 23.2.2009 handed over the Form 35 and original key to the complainant but did not hand over the insurance certificate and the original RC book to him. When the petitioner asked for return of the same, the 3rd OP told him to come after 10 days. Thereafter also when he approached the OP, there was no satisfactory reply and he was made to wait and suffer the delay and ill -treatment by the OPs. Because of the non -availability of the RC book, the petitioner could not cancel the hire purchase endorsement before the registering authority. The insurance co. also asked for the original RC book and the previous policy for verification which could not be complied by the petitioner. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the OPs followed by the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum praying for direction to the OPs to hand over the original RC book and insurance certificate or in the alternative to return the sale price of the vehicle with interest @ 12% p.a. In addition to this, the complainant also prayed for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and damages along with cost of litigation.

(3.) ON notice, the OPs denied the allegations and opposed the complaint. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the petitioner and directed the OPs to hand over the original RC book and insurance certificate to the petitioner failing which, the OPs were directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/ - towards compensation and to pay another sum of Rs.20,000/ - towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/ - towards cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the OPs/respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission for setting aside this order and dismissal of the complaint. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the State Commission. Both these appeals came to be decided in terms of the aforesaid impugned order passed by the State Commission.