J.M.A. STORES LTD. & ANR. vs RAVI SHANKAR SAO & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 68 of 2010 - S.R. Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Ravi Shankar Sao by which, appeal was dismissed with cost.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent no.1 purchased one TATA 407 Goods Carrier Vehicle bearing registration No. JH-10N-1294 financed by TATA Motors Ltd. The complainant has been paying installations against the loan regularly. But, on 30.5.2009 at about 6.30 p.m., the said vehicle was seized by one Akash Singh and employees of J.M. TATA Motors Ltd./OP 2 & 3/Petitioner. Akash Singh abused and beat the Driver of the Vehicle, besides taking Rs.30,000/- kept in the vehicle along with all the documents related to the vehicle. An inventory list of the seized vehicle was prepared which has been received by the Driver. But the said inventory list was not prepared properly. Thereafter, the complainant approached OPs for taking back the vehicle, but he was threatened. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP did not file written statement before District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs to handover possession of seized vehicle in the same position to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Appeal filed by OP No. 2 and 3 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

None appeared for respondent even after service of notice.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as vehicle was not seized by petitioner, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint against him and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed against him.

Perusal of memo of appeal filed by petitioner before State Commission reveals that complainant surrendered vehicle on the instruction of petitioner to representative of the petitioner; namely, Akash Singh. It was further mentioned in memo of appeal that complainant surrendered vehicle, as he failed to pay his dues as per contract. Thus, it becomes clear that whether by seizer or by surrender, vehicle came in possession of petitioner. Learned Counsel for petitioner could not draw my attention to any document by which it can be inferred that complainant committed default in making payment of installments. Learned State Commission further rightly observed that plea of voluntary surrender of vehicle was not asserted before the lower forum. When OP failed to place any document on record to substantiate that complainant was defaulter in making payment of installments, there was no question of surrendering vehicle by complainant to petitioner, who has not granted loan and in such circumstances, it can be observed that petitioner seized vehicle unauthorisedly from complainant and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.