Kalidas Mukherjee, President, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Howrah in case no.43 of 2011 allowing the complaint and directing the OP No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for prolonged mental agony; a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for prolonged harassment and torcher perpetrated upon the complainant by OP No.1; compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for lowering down the social status and prestige of the complainant in the esteem of others by overt acts of the OP No.1; compensation of Rs.1 lakh for causing illegal and overt acts violating the principle of natural justice by OP No.1 and the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- The OP No.1 was directed to pay the total amount of Rs.10,10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the order failing which the sum shall carry interest @ 18% per annum till realization.
The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that he took a vehicle loan to the tune of Rs.4,57,690/- with 35 EMIs @ Rs.18,270/- each. On 27/03/11 the OP No.2 with the help of local hooligans took away the vehicle from the possession of the complainant forcibly. The total period of repayment of the said amount of money was fixed till 10th January, 2013, but the OPs forcibly snatched away the vehicle from the possession of the complainant. For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.
The appellant filed a W.V. before the Learned District Forum contending, inter alia, that the appellant advanced the loan of Rs.4,57,690/- repayable by 35 monthly instalments @ Rs.18,270/- each. The complainant defaulted in payment of EMI and the vehicle was repossessed. Thereafter the vehicle was sold for a price of Rs.1,61,000/-. At the time of repossession the sum of Rs.5,00,593.72/- was due and payable.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the loan was sanctioned by the office of the appellant situated at Park Street which is under the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I, but the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum, Howrah. It is further submitted that the complainant claimed Rs.7 lakhs as compensation, but the Learned District Forum by the impugned judgment has granted compensation of Rs.10 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the repossession was made on 27/03/11 and the complainant defaulted after payment of four EMIs.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant resides at Howrah and the appellant took repossession of vehicle at Howrah. It is submitted that the car was given as the security for the loan and the respondent paid four instalments.
Since the respondent/complainant resides at Howrah the complaint was maintainable before the Learned District Forum, Howrah. The objection of the Learned Counsel for the appellant on this point is not acceptable. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the papers on record, it is clear that prior to repossession of the vehicle no notice was served upon the respondent/complainant. It has been held by the Honble National Commission in the decision reported in 2012 (1) CPR 375 (NC) [B. Narasimha Vs. The Regional Transport Officer (RTA) and Ors.] that taking repossession of the vehicle without notice is bad in law. Not only that there is no document to show that prior to the date of sale of notice was served upon the respondent informing him of the date of sale. Such being the position, it is clear that there was forcible repossession of the vehicle.
It appears that the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.7 lakhs on different counts, but the Learned District Forum has granted compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. We are of the considered view that the compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- would be proper in the circumstances of the case.
The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is directed to pay Rs.3 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant within 45 days from this date failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization. The impugned judgment stands modified to the extent stated above.