TATA FINANCE LIMITED Vs. VIVEK MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, "the State Commission") dated 24.7.2015 in first appeal No.935/2008 whereby the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent/complainant Vivek Mittal got his vehicle financed from the petitioner/opposite party. The loan was to be repaid in instalments. The complainant admittedly committed default in payment of installments for the month of April-May, 2006. It is the case of the complainant that in view of the default the petitioner/opposite party with the help of muscleman forcibly took the possession of the vehicle from the father of the complainant in Haridwar on 18.5.2006. Thereafter on complainant approaching the opposite party and paying the defaulted amount the vehicle was released on 5th July, 2006. According to the complainant the seizure of the vehicle by force on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, he raised the consumer dispute.

(3.) The opposite party despite of service of notice of the consumer complaint failed to put in appearance, as such it was proceeded ex-parte. The District Forum on consideration of the allegations in the complaint and ex-parte evidence led by the complainant allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony and harassment. Besides Rs.5,000/- were awarded as litigation expenses.