National Consumer Disputes Redressal
L & T Finance Ltd. & Anr. vs Meenakshi Kumari & Anr. on 10 April, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2139 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 11/06/2018 in Appeal No. 40/2017 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh) 1. L & T FINANCE LTD. & ANR. CORPORATE OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, BRINDAVAN PLOT NO. 177, C.S.T. ROAD, KALINA SANTACRUZ (EAST) MUMBAI-400098 MAHARAHSTRA 2. L& T FINANCE LTD. M.K. COMPLEX DALHOUSIE ROAD, NEAR CARGO MOTORS PATHANKOT PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MEENAKSHI KUMARI & ANR. W/O. SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, R/O. HOUSE NO. 85/1, VILLAGE AND POST JHARER TEHSIL SHAHPUR DISTRICT-KANGRA HIMACHAL PRADESH 2. SHRI RAVINDER SINGH S/O. SHRI SUJAN SINGH R/O. HOUSE NO. 85/1, VILLAGE AND POST JHARER TEHSIL SHAHPUR DISTRICT-KANGRA HIMACHAL PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT : NEMO
Dated : 10 April 2024 ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 11.06.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 40/2017 in which order dated 24.09.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 43/2016 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the orders of the State Commission in FA/40/2017 and District Forum in CC/43/2016.
2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Parties) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Respondents before the State Commission in FA/40/2017 and Complainants before the District Forum in Complaint No. 43/2016.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 23.08.2018. Petitioner filed Written Arguments on 21.02.2020, Respondents have not filed the written arguments. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the Respondents, hence, Respondents were proceeded ex parte on 24.01.2024.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -
Respondents/Complainants purchased a commercial vehicle after taking financial assistance of Rs.10,53,000/- from the Petitioners/Opposite Parties. As per Loan Agreement dated 23.07.2014, Loan was to be repaid by way of Rs.24,925/- in 59 equal instalments. Total cost of the vehicle was Rs.12,39,600/-. The vehicle was hypothecated with the Petitioner as collateral security for repayment of the loan. The respondents failed to comply with the payment of EMI. The Petitioner issued several reminders to the Respondents for repaying the outstanding amount. Despite receipt of letters/notices, the Respondents failed to re-pay the instalments. Legal notice was issued by the Petitioner on 05.12.2014, calling upon the Respondents to repay an outstanding amount of overdue installment as on 30.11.2014 being Rs.54,388/- along with agreed penal charge. As the Respondents failed to comply with the payment of EMI, the vehicle was repossessed on 18.12.2014. The Petitioners issued post-repossession-pre-sale notice dated 23.12.2014, calling upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.11,28,887/- within a period of seven days, failing which, the vehicle shall be sold at the best quoted price. The Petitioners sold the vehicle in auction, at the highest offer received for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- on 26.05.2015. Even after the sale of the vehicle, Petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs.5,91,180/-. As per clause 12 of the Agreement provided for resolution of dispute through Arbitration and Conciliation, Petitioner through their Counsel issued notice dated 21.11.2015 whereby the Respondents were called upon to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.5,78,920/- within seven days of receipt of notice, failing which, dispute will be referred to Sole Arbitrator. The Petitioner issued notice dated 18.12.2015 for invocation of the Arbitration proceedings and the said request of Petitioner was accepted by the Sole Arbitrator Shri R.S. Bhandurge, Advocate High Court (Retired District & Addl. Sessions Judge) on 18.01.2016. Notice for Arbitration Proceedings was issued to Respondents. Despite service, Respondents failed to participate in the proceedings. The Arbitration Award dated 06.05.2016 for Rs.5,78,920/- with interest @18% p.a. from 27.05.2015 was passed against the Respondents. The Arbitrator awarded Rs.6000/- towards cost of Arbitration. The Complainants/Respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that the vehicle was possessed by the Petitioner/OP without their knowledge, notice and consent.
5. Vide Order dated 24.09.2016 in the CC No. 43/2016, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-
"Accordingly, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.48,733/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint up till payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental harassment etc., Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost."
6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 24.09.2016 of District Forum, Petitioners appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 11.06.2018 dismissed the Appeal No. 40/2017.
7. Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 11.06.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The orders passed by both the Fora are contrary to the law and the facts established on record and are not in consonance with the documents and material on record. The State Commission, by not setting aside the order of the District Forum, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and hence the said order is irregular. The complainants had committed several defaults in repayment of loan amount and therefore, the Petitioner had by following process of law repossessed vehicle and sold the vehicle for best available price after issuing post-repossession notice before the sale of vehicle. The Petitioner sold the vehicle by putting the same on the website www.samil.in and called for best price for selling the vehicle.
(ii) The Fora below failed to appreciate that the Respondents and the Petitioner had entered into Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement and were bound by the terms and conditions of the same. The Fora below have completely disregarded and ignored terms of Agreement which provided that in case of occurrence of any event of default, the Lender may take possession of the asset without intervention of Court and the petitioner had accordingly taken possession of the asset. Clause 9(ii) of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement signed between the parties, provided for that in the event of failure of the Borrower to clear the amounts due and payable under Agreement within 7 days from the date of receipt of the default notice, the Lender may take possession of the assets without intervention of the Courts, either suo-motu or through its agent, duly authorized in this behalf and the Borrower agrees and undertake to surrender the asset to the Lender or its agent, duly authorized. The hypothecated vehicle was thus repossessed /surrendered in terms of the Agreement signed between the parties. Both the Fora below failed to appreciate that the vehicle was repossessed as per the terms of the Agreement and without the use of any force. The Petitioner has repossessed the vehicle by following the due process of law. Since the Petitioner has only followed due process of law, there does not arise any question of deficiency or unfair trade practice and thus the order of the District Forum suffers from jurisdictional error. Both the Fora below failed to appreciate that even after repossession the respondents did not come forward to make any payment and as per the terms of the Agreement and the Petitioner became entitled to sell the vehicle and adjust the sale proceeds towards the outstanding. The respondents were issued with post-repossession-pre-sale notice dated 23.12.2014, calling upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.11,28,887/- within a period of seven days failing which the vehicle shall be sold at the best quoted price. Notice was dispatched through Indian Post on 24.12.2014 at the address as provided by Respondents in their Application Form and the same was served /deemed to be served on the Respondents. The Fora below failed to appreciate that Petitioner got the repossessed/surrendered vehicle valued from the approved valuer being Libra Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Private Limited and they provided with their valuation report dated 29.12.2014, according to which vehicle was valued at Rs.7,45,000/-. The Fora below failed to appreciate that the Petitioner Company has entered into Agreement dated 01.07.2014 with Shriram Automall India Ltd. (SAMIL) in respect of conducting efficient online auctions of use/pre-owned/repossessed assets, by using marketplace technology made available by SAMIL. That SAMIL owns and maintains a web site on the world wide web ("World Wide Web") known as www.samil.in ("The Website") and provides an online marketplace platform wherein certain sellers may offer their assets for sale in an auction style format. The Fora below failed to appreciate that the petitioner conducted the auction through SAMIL and repossessed vehicle was put on the website being maintained by SAMIL for the purpose of Auction. That the Offers for Equipment were received by Petitioner from online listing, which offered different prices for purchase of vehicle. The Respondents being aware of the repossession of vehicle and subsequently sale of vehicle failed to approach the Petitioner for settlement of dues or purchase of vehicle in auction and thus the Petitioner sold the vehicle at the highest offer received for the sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- on 26.05.2015. That even after the sale of the said vehicle the petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs.5,91,180/-. That the vehicle was sold by Petitioner after waiting for long period for Respondents to approach them for settlement or purchase of vehicle on Auction, petitioner after repossession of vehicle retained it for more than five months, however, despite that Respondents failed to get the vehicle released by repaying the outstanding amount of Petitioner.
(iii) The Fora below failed to appreciate that in terms of the Agreement as entered between the parties, pre-sale notice dated 23.12.2014 was sent to Respondents on their address as mentioned in the application form. Clause 9(iv) Of Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement provided that after taking possession of the Asset, the lender shall send notice prior to sale of Asset (Pre-Sale Notice) to the Borrower calling upon the Borrower to clear the total amount outstanding under the Agreement (Loan Outstanding). As per Clause 9(v) of the Agreement, on failure of the Borrower to clear the Loan Outstanding on receipt of the Pre-sale notice, the Lender may sell the Asset by Private treaty and adjust the sale proceeds thereof against the Loan Outstandings of the Borrower. Borrower hereby waives his right to challenge the sale of the Asset by the Lender. Clause (vi) provides that the borrower, agrees and undertakes to clear the Balance Loan Outstanding, if any, after adjusting the sale proceeds of the Asset against Loan Outstanding, on receipt of Post-Sale Notice from the Lender. Thus the petitioner strictly followed terms of Agreement as agreed between the parties and sold the vehicle after following due process of law. The Fora below have failed in appreciating that it is admitted case that the respondents were in default and ultimately the vehicle was repossessed by following due process of law and the right conferred upon the present Petitioner which are held to be legal and valid by the National Commission in the matter of Shriram Transport Finance V/s. Chaman Lal IV (2012) CPJ 93 (NC) (Reliance also on Ram Pal Singh vs. General Manager, Shri Transport Finance Co. Ltd. RP 187 of 2012 decided on 24.01.2013); Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Ltd. vs Sankatha Prasad in the matter of Revision petition no. 1704/2007; Sriniwas Poojarappa vs Mahindra Finance in Revision petition no. 2980/2010 dated 09.05.2011 passed by the National Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. Sanjay Shankarsa Mamarde AIR 2010 SC 3534 has held that, 'Where borrower has no genuine intention to repay and adopts pretext and ploys to avoid payment, then no grievance can be made out against the corporation.' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. vs. Shri Jagminder Singh (2006) 2 SCC 598 has held that 'If agreements permit the financier to take possession of the financed vehicles, there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken. Of course, the hirer can avail such statutory remedy as may be available. But mere fact that possession has been taken cannot be a ground to contend that the hirer is prejudiced.' Because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suryapal Singh Vs. Siddha Vinayak Motors III (2012) CPJ 4 (SC) has held that possession of vehicle retaken by financier on ground of non-payment of instalments is legally permissible. Because National Commission in Shantilata Das vs ICICI Bank Ltd. RP no. 3544 of 2013 decided on 29 October, 2013 found no deficiency to have been committed by the Bank in the matter of repossession and sale of the hypothecated vehicle, and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. The National Commission agreed that there was admittedly default in payment of the EMI as per the agreement, the Bank was empowered to repossess the vehicle, and for realization of the outstanding loan amount, the Bank being the owner of the vehicle and the person to whom the finance was made being the hirer, had every right to sell the vehicle. The National Commission in Axis Bank Ltd. vs Shri S. Venugopal Naidu RP No. 742 of 2014 decided on 15 December, 2014 has held that in terms of the Agreement OP was perfectly within its rights to ask for whole of the due amount on default of payment of instalments and OP was within its rights to recover possession of the vehicle on default in payment of instalments and to sell the vehicle and no deficiency could be found in this regard. The National Commission in Director, Berar Finance Ltd. vs Satishkumar Prabhakarrao RP No. 3856 OF 2012 decided on 8 December, 2014 set aside the judgments of Fora below granting compensation holding that the vehicle had been possessed on account of default in payment of instalments and has been sold after due notice, no deficiency on the part of the opposite party can be presumed. The National Commission in Sri Jasobanta Narayan Ram vs The Branch Manager, L&T; Finance FA no. 888 OF 2013 decided on 4 March, 2014 has observed, 'On merits also, it has been clearly admitted by the complainant that he was a defaulter on the date of repossession of the vehicle by the OP. He also admits that it has been provided in the loan- cum-hypothecation agreement that OP shall have the right of repossess the vehicle in the case of defaulter. The deficiency in service on the part of the OP has not been proved anywhere. This Commission in Sheelakumari V/s. Tata Engineering reported in II (2007) CPJ 92 (NC) and St. Mary's Hire Purchase (P) V/s. N. A. Jose reported in III (1995) CPJ 58 (NC) has held that a seizure of vehicle under an agreement for default of payment of installments cannot be considered as deficiency in services. The District Forum has completely ignored the terms and conditions agreed between the parties vide Agreement especially to the covenant as to payment of monies regardless of circumstances, events of defaults, consequences of default and termination, legal remedies and in fact sought to rewrite the terms and conditions of the same, and granted reliefs in total contradiction to the terms and conditions of the said Agreement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Sea Shore Apartment Welfare Association AIR 2008 SC 1151 has held that it is not for the Fora under the Act to enter into the price fixation or to re-open a concluded contract with a view to getting back a part of the price paid and of which benefit was taken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Polymat India (P) Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2005) 9 SCC 174 has held that it is the duty of the court to interpret the document of contract as was understood between the parties strictly without altering the nature of the contract. The National Commission in T.V. SundaramIyengar & Sons Ltd. vs. Dr. Muthuswamy Duraiswamy II (2003) CPJ 176(NC), has held that the consumer forum have no jurisdiction to strike down a condition in a contract or to rewrite the same. The Fora below have passed the impugned orders without referring and/or giving observations and/or legal reasoning, as such the impugned orders appear to have been passed without application of mind and in ignorance of legal position.
(iv) The District Forum failed to appreciate that there was arbitration clause in the said Agreement for determination of any disputes and differences and arbitration was in fact invoked and Arbitral Award passed in favour of the Petitioner. The Arbitrator after hearing submissions of the Petitioner and on the basis of material on record passed an Arbitral Award and the order of the District Forum which has been passed subsequent to the said Award runs contrary to and is in direct conflict with the said Arbitral Award. The complainants have not challenged said Award dated 06.05.2016 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 before Competent Court of Law, hence, the said Award has attained finality and is binding upon the Complainant. The National Commission in Instalment Supply Ltd. Vs Kangra Ex- Serviceman Transport I (2007) CPJ 34 NC has observed that wherein an Award was passed, it would govern the disputes between the parties and the Fora below should not have passed an order by overlooking the Award. The State Commission in Indusind Bank vs. Jatan Kumar Sethi , while considering a similar position where an Arbitral Award was already passed has while relying upon Instalment Supply Ltd. Vs Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport held that the District Forum was not competent to pass orders and set aside the order thereupon. That the revision petition preferred against the said order being Jatan Kumar Sethi vs. Indusind Bank RP No. 3586/2009 was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 24.02.2010. The National Commission in S. Banwant Singh vs. Kanpur Development Authority III (2009) CPJ 425 NC has held that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the award of the Arbitrator then the remedy lies in proceeding against that order of the Arbitrator, as per law and that no complaint under Consumer Protection Act is maintainable. The District Forum has failed to examine the issue of the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, its invocation and the arbitral proceedings consequent thereto whereby an Award came to be passed in favour of the petitioner. The decision of the Arbitrator is binding on the parties, but despite the same the District Forum has passed the order holding the said Award as non-estand failing to realize that the complaint was preferred merely to frustrate and avoid execution of the said Award. The District Forum failed to appreciate that the Award had been passed as per law, it held good till being set aside by a competent authority and that authority is not the District Forum but the authorities which are provided in the Arbitration Act, 1996. The District Forum failed to appreciate that the dispute between the parties was as to settlement of account. The National Commission in Vishal Roadways vs. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd., III (1998) CP) 9 (NC), has observed that the complaint relates to settlement of accounts between the parties and recovery of balance amount, and appropriate remedy lies in Civil Court and it is not a "consumer dispute." The District Forum failed to appreciate that the complainant neither falls under the definition of consumer nor the vehicle used for the purpose of his livelihood and the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant only for business Purpose/commercial use and he chose not to produce a single document to show that the vehicle was used for his livelihood. The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint as the respondents have entered into a Loan cum Hypothecation agreement dated 26.06.2014 with the petitioner for purchasing the truck. That the truck is registered under the category of Commercial vehicle under Motor Vehicle Act and thus the respondent No. 1 was not a 'consumer' within the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint as the petitioner and respondents under the clause 12.5 of the Agreement has agreed that the court/forum of Mumbai only will have jurisdiction with regard to any disputes, differences and claims. That the parties have agreed inter-se that the court of Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction, thus the complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable.The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint as Ld. District Forum at Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute. The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint in as much as the cause of action agitated before it, is a dispute of civil in nature and ought to have declined to exercise its jurisdiction under the Act. The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint on the ground that the adjudication of the dispute involves examination of voluminous evidence both oral and documentary and the same cannot be adjudicated under summary proceedings before the consumer court. Both the Fora below failed to inquire the case in proper perspective in accordance with law and material on record and over stretched the jurisdiction.
8. On 24.01.2024, when the case was fixed for final hearing, none appeared for Petitioners as well as Respondents. As respondents were duly served, it was decided to proceed ex parte against them. As Petitioners were unrepresented on an earlier date also (23.08.2023), it was decided to take up the case on merits as per available records. Contentions/pleas of the Petitioners, on various issues raised in the RP, and Written Arguments, are summed up below. (Respondents did not file any reply/written arguments).
In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the Petitioner contends the Respondents were never regular and punctual in making payment. On failure of respondents to repay amount, Petitioner was constrained to repossess the vehicle. Vehicle was surrendered on 18.12.2014. The Clause 9 (ii) of the Agreement, duly provided for repossession of vehicle without intervention of court. Even after repossession of vehicle, respondents failed to make aby payment, thus, post-repossession/ pre-sale notice dated 23.12.2014 was issued to respondents. The vehicle was valued through Approved Valuer and as per valuation report dated 29.12.2014 valuation of vehicle was Rs.7,45,000/-. The vehicle was sold through On-line Public Auction maintained by SAMIL. The offer was received, vehicle was sold at best possible price of Rs.5,50,000/- on 26.05.2015. The vehicle was sold after waiting for more than five months. Even after the sale of vehicle, petitioner was entitled to recover an amount of RS.5,91,180/-. The invocation notice dated 18.12.2015 for resolution of dispute through arbitration was issued and thereafter acceptance notice, notice of proceedings were issued. The Respondents failed to join the proceedings and the arbitration award dated 06.05.2016 was passed for the recovery of an amount of Rs.578920/- with interest @18% p.a. The District Forum allowed the complaint preferred by the Respondents. In paragraph 14 of the impugned order the District Forum wrongly dwelled into price fixation, being beyond the jurisdiction of District Forum. The District Forum failed to appreciate that the vehicle was sold after more than five months from repossession and thus the value of the vehicle was bound to be marginalized. The depreciation of the value of the Commercial Vehicle within one year of purchase is 50 to 60% and thus the unilateral deduction of 5% of value has no rational. The State Commission while deciding the Appeal wrongly recorded that public notice of sale of vehicle should be issued in two leading newspapers and because the Petitioner company has not given public notice for sale, Appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum was upheld. The State Commission was misguided in recording that the Principle of Natural Justice requires that the sale notice shall be given in two newspapers. The said procedure has not been defined anywhere. In the present case, post-repossession/pre-sale notice was personally issued to the respondents and thus they were aware of public auction, however, despite so, they failed to approach the Petitioner and repay the amount.
9. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum and other relevant records. In this case there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioners herein. The District Forum in its order has observed/held that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for Rs.12,39,600/-. Although no date of sale has been mentioned, District Forum by considering that loan was sanctioned on 23.07.2014 by the OP, took the date of purchase of the vehicle as July, 2014. Considering that vehicle was re-possessed on 18.12.2014, the District Forum observed that at the time when the vehicle was repossessed by the OP, it was only four months old and therefore, only 5% depreciation on its purchase value is to be deducted. By applying 5% depreciation, market value of the vehicle at the time of repossession was fixed at Rs.11,77,620/-. The District Forum has further observed that when the possession of the vehicle was taken away by the OPs, a sum of Rs.11,28,887/- was outstanding against the complainant, therefore, after deducting this amount , the District Forum held OPs liable to pay Rs.48,733/- to the complainants as value of the vehicle. The District Forum further stated that the complainants have succeeded in establishing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, allowing the complaint, ordered the OPs to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.48,733/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment, along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs.
10. In Appeal, the State Commission appropriately addressing various contentions raised by the Petitioner herein, who was Appellant before the State Commission, about the complainant not being a consumer, the matter not falling within the definition of service, the Arbitration clause barring the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act etc. concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal. The State Commission further observed that OPs did not place on record terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement and no reasons were given for the same. Hence, the State Commission observed that adverse inference is drawn against the OPs for non-production of the above said loan cum hypothecation agreement, observing further that OPs were under legal obligation to place on record Panchnama drawn and signed by witnesses relating to the possession of vehicle. In the present matter, no Panchnama was drawn.
11. We are in agreement with the observations and findings of both the fora below, in particular, we are of the considered view that considering the vehicle had run only for few months (less than six months) till the date of re-possession and OPs sold the vehicle at a very low value of Rs.5.50 lakhs against the original costs of Rs.12.39 lakhs. Even as per OPs own contentions in the RP, they got the valuation of the said vehicle done through their approved valuer, according to which the vehicle was valued as Rs.7,45,000/-. Had the auction/sale of the vehicle been done after due publicity and observance of due procedure, it possibly could have fetched a price higher than the assessed value. But in the present case, the price fetched in the sale is much less, Rs.5.50 lakhs only, against the assessed value of Rs.7.45 lakhs even by the OPs' own approved valuer.
12. The Petitioners contended that depreciation of the value of the commercial vehicle within one year of purchase is 50 to 60% and thus unilateral fixation of depreciation value at 5% by the District Forum has no rational. However, no guidelines/approved rules relating to assessment of depreciation value of the commercial vehicles has been placed on record. It is seen that under the India Motor Tariff (IMT), which is used by Insurance Companies to fix the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of vehicles at the time of Insurance, if the age of vehicle does not exceed six months, the percentage of depreciation for fixing IDV is taken as 5%. In view of this, considering that the age of vehicle at the time of re-possession was less than six months, the District Forum was justified in deducting the depreciation value at 5%.
13. In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Fora below. As was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577] held that "the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity." We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence, the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
14. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
................................................ DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER