MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH. VIRENDER SINGH RAWAT, 8, SANT NAGAR, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI Vs. BABU RAM MANJHI R/O. HOUSE NO. 42, GUNJADIH, NAWADIH, VILLAGE CHAPARI, TOLA GHANGAPAN DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition by Magma Fincorp Ltd. (for short "the Finance Company"), Opposite Parties in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 04.11.2016, passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ranchi (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 143 of 2012. By the impugned order, while partly modifying the order dated 21.08.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Korba (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 100 of 2011, the State Commission has directed the Finance Company to pay to the Respondent/Complainant a sum of Rs. 1,99,887/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 31.10.2011, till realization. Insofar as the District Forum is concerned, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Finance Company in repossessing the vehicle, namely, Tata Tipper, without any notice, and selling the same within a week from the date of its repossession, the District Forum had directed the Finance Company to refund to the Complainant the afore-noted amount with the afore-noted interest, along with a compensation of Rs. 25,000.00 towards mental agony, harassment etc.

(2.) On 24.01.2017, when the case had come up for motion hearing, we had asked learned Counsel, appearing for the Finance Company, to seek instructions as to whether any notice was issued to the Complainant before repossession of the vehicle and before putting it to auction.

(3.) Learned Counsel states that as per her instructions, no such notice was issued, as under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the Finance Company continued to be the owner of the vehicle till all the instalments were paid on time and, therefore, there was no necessity to issue such a notice before repossessing the vehicle. In support of the submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on certain decisions of this Commission.