Balmukund vs Shri Ram Transport

C. Viswanath, J

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section  21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, M.P. (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 2164/2012 dated 09.02.2018.

In Complaint case, it was stated that the Petitioner/Complainant got financed a vehicle Eicher Truck No. 09 JE 3191 from the Respondent/Opposite Party for earning his livelihood, which was registered in the name of Rakesh Mishra as per the records of the Respondent. The Petitioner had paid Rs.5,400/- as tax for the vehicle, Rs.16,157/- towards insurance amount and Rs.40,000/- to the Respondent. The Respondent, however, did not provide any documents to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had further deposited instalments of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.12,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. Petitioner's contention was that the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the Petitioner by the Respondent, due to which he could not use the vehicle. On 13.10.2009, the Respondent served a notice on him for deposit of Rs.94,550. Thereafter on 03.03.2010 when the Petitioner reached AB Road, Rau, the Respondent seized the vehicle. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent alleging deficiency in service.

The Complaint was contested by the Respondent contending that the vehicle was previously registered in the name of Rakesh Mishra. On 03.05.2008, the Petitioner had given Rs.40,000/- to the Respondent, but further instalments were not deposited on time. As per the contention of the Respondent, the Petitioner purchased the vehicle directly from with Rakesh Mishra and gave assurance to deposit instalments on time. The Respondent financed Rs.3,60,000/- to the Petitioner and a loan agreement was executed on 11.06.2008 in the name of Rakesh Mishra and loan amount was deposited in his loan account but the loan account could not be closed. Recovery notice was served to the Petitioner by the Respondent, but the Petitioner did not deposit the instalments on time. Thus, the Respondent had taken possession of the vehicle after following due process and prayed for cancellation of the Complaint of the Petitioner.

District Forum, vide order dated 17.10.2012, dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent committed deficiency in service. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 09.02.2018, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner confirming the order passed by the District Forum.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission on the following grounds:-

a. The impugned order passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum was erroneous, unsustainable and deserved to be set-aside.

Both the Fora below erred in holding that no deficiency in service was committed by the Respondent, whereas non-transfer of name change in R.T.O records is itself a deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent. Petitioner was unable to earn his livelihood.

b. Both the Fora below committed error in ignoring the fact that the Petitioner was paying instalments but the Respondent forcefully seized the vehicle of the Petitioner without any prior notice.

c. The Fora below have wrongly dismissed the Complaint of the Petitioner without appreciating evidence brought on record by the Petitioner.

d. If the impugned order passed by both the Fora below are allowed to stand, it would result as failure of justice.

Heard the Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner. He submitted that the Petitioner is a purchaser of second hand vehicle from Sh. Rakesh Mishra who had taken a loan from the Respondent Company. It is clear from the statements of Complainant, that he received the possession of the vehicle and was using it. The Petitioner admits that the vehicle was seized by the Respondent when it was on its way on M.B. Road. It is evident that Petitioner was using the said vehicle. The Petitioner signed the loan cum hypothecation agreement executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner was, therefore, bound by the above agreement. According to clause 6 of the agreement re-possession of vehicle by debtor on the default of the payment of instalments has been provided. From a perusal of the evidence available on record as well the orders of the District Forum and State Commission, it is clear that on 13.10.2009 the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 14.10.2009, notice was sent to the Petitioner by the Respondent where the Petitioner was asked to pay arrears or due amount of Rs.94,550/- in respect of the loan taken to purchase the vehicle in question. The Petitioner did not pay the aforesaid amount and therefore the vehicle in question was seized by the Respondent Company. We see no error in the order passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission. The present Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is confirmed.