- (1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 24.12.2009 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, the State Commission ) in appeal no.1816 of 2009 filed by the complainant (petitioner in this revision petition and appellant before the State Commission) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna (in short, the District Forum ). By its aforesaid order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant.
(2.) The facts are that the petitioner/complainant purchased a motor vehicle (Chevrolet Tavera) from respondent 1 which was the opposite party (OP) 1 before the District Forum. The petitioner availed of loan from respondent (OP 2 before the District Forum) for this purpose. According to the complainant, he left his vehicle at the premises of respondent 1 for servicing. The servicing was not carried out for one reason or the other and the complainant finally found that respondent 1 had somehow handed over his vehicle to respondent 2 without any intimation to him. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondent 1 in handing over his vehicle to respondent 2 without his permission, the complainant sought various reliefs before the District Forum. The complaint was opposed by both the OPs with OP 1 claiming that OP 2 repossessed the vehicle from the premises of OP 1 because the complainant could not be located. OP 2 on the other hand, pleaded that it repossessed the vehicle because of the complainant s repeated defaults in payment of monthly instalments of loan and interest. After considering the pleadings and evidence brought on record, the District Forum passed the following order: "Consequently, this complaint is disposed of by the following order: (i) The opposite party no.1 shall pay compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service committed by them and the same shall be calculated as Rs.5000/- per month; it becomes total Rs.1,55,000/- for the period of 31 months from 28.02.2007 to August 2009. (ii) If the opposite party no. 1 does not pay the said requisite amount of compensation within 45 days, then interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be payable over the whole compensation amount from 03.06.2007 till this date. (iii) The opposite party no. 2, which has not taken back the vehicle from the custody of the complainant as per the rules, shall hand over the questioned vehicle in running condition to the custody of the complainant within 15 days. (iv) If the opposite party no. 2 does not hand over the vehicle in running condition in the custody of the complainant within 15 days as per the above directions then from the date of this order the opposite party shall pay Rs.5000/- per month to the complainant as compensation. (v) If the complainant presents the complete description about the cheque of Rs.60,000/- to opposite party no.1 through post, the opposite party shall satisfy the complainant that the adjustment of the said amount would be done in which manner. (vi) After considering the whole circumstances the expenses of this proceedings is ascertained as Rs.1000/-. The same shall be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant jointly and severally".
(3.) Dissatisfied with this order, the complainant appealed to the State Commission for enhancement of the compensation granted to him. By the impugned order dated 24.12.2009, the State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing as under: "We find from the various directions in favour of the appellant substantial relief has been granted to the complainant and we do not find any ground for enhancing the amount to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.5000/-. The relief has been substantially granted and there is no reason to deviate therefrom. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine".;