(1.) (Oral) - This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 19.2.2015 whereby the said Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner Bank against the order of the District Forum dated 11.5.2012 whereby the said Forum had directed the petitioner Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 2.65.000 towards price of the vehicle and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation besides Rs. 10.000 as cost of the litigation. Since there is a delay of more than 9 months (282 days) in filing this Revision Petition IA No. 3368 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner Bank seeking condonation of the said delay.
(2.) The respondent/complainant purchased one Matiz car on 4.5.2001 taking a finance of Rs. 2,82,000 from the petitioner Bank. The loan amount was repayable in 60 monthly instalments of Rs. 6,738. Alleging default in timely payment of the said instalments, the petitioner Bank sent notices to the complainant, bringing the said default to his notice and also informing that it would be constrained to take action for repossessing the vehicle in exercise of the option available to it under the loan agreement. The vehicle was repossessed on 4.8.2005 through an agency which the petitioner Bank had at that time employed for such a purpose. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle was taken forcibly while he was traveling in it whereas the case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was seized from outside his residence. The vehicle was later sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000.
(3.) During the course of hearing, I asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner Bank as to whether signature of the complainant had been taken on the repossession memo of the vehicle while it was repossessed allegedly from outside his residence on 4.8.2005. The learned Counsel fairly stated that no such signature were taken. In fact even the copy of the repossession memo is not on record. Admittedly, the complainant had lodged a report in the police station on 6.8.2005 alleging forcible seizure of the vehicle. Had the vehicle been repossessed from outside of the residence of the vehicle, the petitioner Bank or the agency employed by the petitioner Bank would have at least obtained signature of the complainant on the repossession memo of the vehicle. That having not been done and the complainant having lodged a report with police on 6.8.2005 lodging forcible seizure of the vehicle it can hardly be disputed that the vehicle was repossessed forcibly and without following due process of law.