Parteek Finance Company vs JASBIR SINGH

THE petitioner/opposite party No.1 has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh passed in F.A No.2083 of 2010 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the District Forum in complaint no.35 of 2010. By its order, the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant and directed the opposite party Nos.1 and 2/petitioner and respondent No.2 respectively to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/ - and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/ - besides returning the motorcycle in question in the same condition in which it was snatched from the complainant.

AS per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant purchased motorcycle of Hero Honda CD Deluxe make which was financed by the petitioner from whom he had taken a loan of Rs.24,400/ -. By way of repayment of the loan, he paid amounts on different dates against which receipts were issued in some cases and no receipt was issued in some other cases. The details are given in the complaint. As per the allegation, the motorcycle was forcibly snatched by the opposite parties on 2.2.2010 without any prior intimation or notice from the hands of complainant''s son, Varinder Singh while he was going along with his wife and child to the doctor for treatment of the child. In spite of several requests, the opposite parties refused to return the motorcycle. Alleging this as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, a consumer complaint was filed with the District Forum.

ON notice, the OPs filed their reply in which it was admitted that loan was advanced to the complainant for purchase of the motorcycle and also that the loan had been repaid in parts by way of instalments. They denied the other averments of the complainant and contended that a loan of Rs.27,000/ - was advanced but denied that the complainant had repaid the amounts of Rs.5,000/ - and Rs.12,000/ - as alleged in the complaint. It was further submitted that because of financial constraints to repay the instalments, the complainant himself had surrendered the motorcycle by executing a surrender letter dated 2.2.2010 and voluntarily handed over the possession of the vehicle to them. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Both the sides led evidence in support of their case before the District Forum which after going through the same and hearing the parties, allowed the complaint as noted above.

AGGRIEVED of the order of the District Forum, the OP No.1 challenged the same before the State Commission by filing an appeal which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 9.7.2013 of the State Commission. The present revision petition challenges this impugned order of the State Commission.

LEARNED Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate has appeared for the petitioner and we have heard his arguments during the course of admission hearing. We have also perused the record placed before us.

THE State Commission while returning its concurrent finding in favour of the complainant and non -suiting the defence of the petitioner has recorded reasons in support of the impugned order. In this regard, para 12 of the impugned order is reproduced thus: "12. It is a matter of common knowledge that private Finance Companies have employed musclemen, who forcibly took away the vehicles purchased with the help of the loans obtained from those Finance Companies. The averments made by the complainant that he had been paying the instalments of the loan against receipts have not been denied by the opposite parties. Admittedly he had already paid Rs.14,100/ - towards the total loan amount, which according to him, was Rs.24,400/ - and according to the opposite parties, was Rs.27,000.00. It is the case of the complainant that he had paid two other amounts of Rs.5,000/ - and Rs.12,000/ - towards the loan but those facts have been denied by the opposite parties in their written reply. Those facts have been proved by the complainant by means of his affidavit, which stands corroborated by the affidavit of one Rachhbeg Singh Ex.CW -3/A. If that is the case, a major part of the loan has already been repaid and it cannot be said that the complainant would have voluntarily handed over the possession of the motorcycle by alleging that there was financial constraint for repaying the loan amount. In view of the evidence produced on the record, we conclude that the surrender letter has been forged by the opposite parties in order to cover their illegal act of forcibly taking of the motorcycle from the possession of the complainant. The District Forum correctly allowed the complaint and issued a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/ - and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/ - in addition to the return of the motorcycle in the same condition in which it was forcibly taken from the complainant. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs."

WE agree with the concurrent finding of both the Fora below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the surrender letter signed by the complainant by which it is claimed by the petitioner that the vehicle had been voluntarily surrendered by the complainant/respondent No.1 on account of his financial difficulties due to which he was unable to pay the instalments. On being asked as to why there was no date mentioned on the surrender letter either on the top of the letter or at the end of the letter to indicate the date of the surrender, learned counsel tried to explain that the date of 2.2.2010 has been mentioned in the body of the surrender letter in the middle to show that the vehicle was surrendered on 2.2.2010. He further tried to corroborate this by saying that in para 3 of the complaint also the date of surrender of the vehicle is mentioned as 2.2.2010. We do not find the explanation of the counsel as convincing because the date given in para 3 of the complaint is with reference to the forcible snatching of the motorcycle and as such the petitioner cannot take advantage of that date to prove the genuineness of the surrender document which is alleged by the complainant to be a fake document on which signature of the complainant has been forged to cover the illegal act of the OPs. Admittedly, there is no separate notice by the petitioner in regard to the surrender or taking over of the vehicle on account of the default in the payment of the instalments of loan. Be that as it may, we also note that it is a case where both the Fora below have returned their concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner and nothing has been produced before us which will persuade us to find any infirmity with this finding. Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act under which this revision petition has been filed confers very limited powers on this Commission to interfere with the orders of the Fora below. The Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Ruby (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 3 JT 586 has observed thus: - "23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

IN view of the above, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and hence dismiss the same at the threshold but with no order as to costs.