Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd vs Motilal Swain

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by Petitioner against order dated 16.10.2012 passed by Learned State Commission in Misc. Case No. 1341 of 2012 by which earlier order dated 26.9.2012 passed in RP No. 88 of 2012 - The Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. & Ors. VS. Motilal Swain, was modified.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant -Respondent filed complaint before District Forum and Learned District Forum vide interim order dated 7.8.2012 directed Opposite Party -Petitioner to release vehicle No. OR -09 -N -4079 on payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 31,838/ -. Opposite Party filed revision before State Commission and Learned State Commission vide order dated 26.9.2012 while deciding Revision Petition finally directed Complainant to deposit additional Rs. 23,162/ - for release of the vehicle and it was further observed that Complainant shall make payment of monthly EMIs on the stipulated dates and shall also make good outstanding EMI dues within a period of six months from October, 2012. Later on, vide order dated 16.10.2012, Learned State Commission, on application of Complainant , modified order dated 26.9.2012 and directed Opposite Party to receive Rs. 50,000/ - including Rs. 23,162. Opposite Party filed another Misc. Application to modify order dated 16.10.2012 which was dismissed by Learned State Commission vide order dated 30.10.2012.

HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that impugned order is without jurisdiction as Learned State Commission had no power to review its order, hence, Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with Law, hence, Revision Petition be dismissed. Perusal of record reveals that while disposing of Revision Petition finally, State Commission directed Opposite Party to deposit Rs. 23,162/ - within stipulated time. After disposing Revision Petition, Learned State Commission had no authority to review its order in the light of judgment of Hon ''ble Apex Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak VS. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, 2011 STPL (Web) 717 SC 1. Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that impugned order is not modified order of earlier order dated 26.9.2012. This arguments is devoid of force as perusal of impugned order reveals that amount has been reduced from Rs. 55,000/ - to Rs. 50,000/ - and vide order dated 26.9.2012, Complainant was directed to pay Rs. 23,162/ - as Rs. 31,838/ - had already been paid, whereas, vide impugned order Learned State Commission directed to pay balance amount from the amount of Rs. 50,000/ -, meaning thereby, clearly reduced amount from Rs. 55,000/ - to Rs. 50,000/ - which clearly amounts to modification of the order.

IN the light of above discussion, as Learned State Commission had no power to review its order, the impugned order dated 16.10.2012 is liable to set aside.

CONSEQUENT LY , Revision Petitioned filed by the Petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 16.10.2012 passed by Learned State Commission in Misc. Case No. 1341 of 2012 in RP No. 88 of 2012 - The Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. & Ors. VS. Motilal Swain, is set aside with no order as to costs.