AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS petition is by the opposite party No. 1.
COMPLAINANT -respondent No. 1 had purchased through the petitioner -opposite party No. 1 taxi jeep. It was the petitioner who had arranged finance for the complainant from opposite party No. 2, Director, Provincial Automobile Finance Ltd., now respondent No. 2 before us. It has been found that the payment of loan in instalments was made by the complainant to the petitioner who in turn was supposed to pay to the respondent No. 2. It would appear that payments though received by the petitioner were not passed on to respondent No. 2 resulting that the vehicle was repossessed by respondent No. 2. Complaining deficiency in service, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Certain directions were issued by the District Forum with which we are presently not concerned. That pertained to unfair trade practice being indulged by the petitioner. It was directed that petitioner shall pay Rs. 2,15,000/ - to the complainant with interest @ 20% per annum from the date the vehicle was repossessed till the final realisation of the amount. Petitioner was further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/ - for unfair trade practice being indulged by it and Rs. 40,000/ - was awarded to the complainant towards harassment and suffering caused to him. District Forum, also awarded Rs. 1,000/ - as cost. On appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum and further imposed cost of Rs. 2,000/ - on the petitioner. We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed