2.	Undisputed facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 for purchase of a car, for which finance charges were worked out as Rs. 26,000. Hence, in this way, the total amount payable by the Complainant to the Petitioner was Rs. 2,26,000 for which post-dated cheques were issued showing payment of Rs. 12,242 of each Installment. It is admitted position that the cheque dated 5.7 2000 issued by the Respondent was dishonoured for which a Demand Draft (DO) was made and given to the Petitioner which they could not encash, as it appears that this DO was misplaced by the Petitioner. Again there was question of non-payment of installments on 5.6.2001 and 5.7.2001 amounting to Rs. 14,382. As per the Respondent, they repossessed the vehicle in terms of the 'hire-purchase agreement', as amount of Rs. 48,350 was outstanding against the Respondent/Complainant. It is also on record that after the Complainant had paid Rs. 48,730, the vehicle was released in favour of the Respondent / Complainant but the Complainant was not satisfied. According to him, the Petitioner was not entitled to Rs. 48,730 and when the matter was not getting settled between the parties, a complaint was filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint as repossession and subsequent settlement of the matter on payment of Rs. 48,730 by the Respondent to the Petitioner was found to be in order. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission by the Respondent which was allowed and Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 48,730 along with compensation of Rs. 20,000 within a period of 2 months, failing which it was to carry interest @ 9.0% p.a. along with cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us.
3.	We heard the learned counsels for the parties at some length and perused the material on record. The first plea taken by the Petitioner is that in view of the provision for 'arbitration' in the 'hire-purchase agreement', this Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. It is made clear that in view of the settled position of law, Section 3 of the CPA. 1986 clearly stipulates that this is an 'additional remedy. Hence, it has been consistently held by this Commission that it is for the party to decide as to which option to exercise? The reliance of the learned counsel of the Petitioner on the order of this Commission in the case of Arihant Converters versus United India Insurance Co Ltd is misplaced for the simple reason that in that case both the parties agreed for arbitration, which is not the case before us. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MD, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd versus Jagmander Singh & Anr again does not help the Petitioner, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not ousted the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora for the simple reason as that was not the issue before them.
4.	Coming to the merit of the case, we see that it is not in dispute that the installment, which was due on 05.07.2000, for which cheque had been given earlier, was dishonoured, but admittedly, as soon as the Respondent was informed, he got prepared a DD dated 25.07.2000 and sent it to the Petitioner, which apparently seems to have been misplaced by the Petitioner. This factum was brought to the notice of the Respondent only in 2002, in view of which the Petitioner has to find fault with himself for delay in payment of installment, but the fact will remain that this amount would remain due from the Respondent. There is no dispute about the outstanding amount of Rs. 14,382. Admittedly, the Respondent has paid Rs. 48,730 to the Petitioner for release of the vehicle and this comprised the non-payment of two installments as also the expenditure incurred by the Petitioner in re-possession of the vehicle along with interest. Since the DD has not been encashed and since subsequent payments due on 05.06.2001 & 05.07.2001 were not made, in our view, the Petitioner shall be entitled for this amount.
5.	However, we are somewhat surprised to notice as to under what conditions the amount of Rs. 13,200 received by the Petitioner from the Insurance Company was returned by the Petitioner to the Respondent / Complainant. This was the part of the adjustment amount of Rs. 48,730/- made by them. The dates of receipt of the Insurance amount, receipt of Rs. 48,730 and the return of amount of Rs. 13,200 by the Petitioner to the Complainant are too close to be awarded interest thereon except that we would like to round off the amount not to be refunded/returned by the Respondent to the Petitioner. In view of this the Petitioner is entitled to return of Rs. 13,200, which they erroneously returned to the Complainant, along with a token interest of Rs. 300 making it a round figure of Rs. 13,500. Respondent! Complainant is directed to pay back by way of DD an amount of Rs. 13,500 within a period of 6 weeks of receipt of this order failing which the Petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9.0% p.a.
6.	The award of compensation and cost in these circumstances does not stand our scrutiny and is set aside as according to us repossession was in order and as per terms but since there has been error in refunding the amount, we are directing the return of money by the Complainant to the Petitioner with a token interest.
7.	This revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.