National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mohan Lal Sharma vs Mahendra And Mahendra Finance Service ... on 20 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 226 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 27/11/2014 in Appeal No. 746/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. MOHAN LAL SHARMA S/O SH.RAMNATH SHARMA, R/O NEAR SITA RAM JI MANDIR, AALANPUR, SAWAI MADOPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MAHENDRA AND MAHENDRA FINANCE SERVICE LIMITED & ANR. BALAJI KATLA TOK BUS STAND KE PASS, BAJARIA, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, SAWAI MADOPUR RAJASTHAN 2. MAHENDRA AND MAHENDRA FINANCE SERVICE LTD PLOT NO-=24,25,26, 3RD FLOOR, MAHINDRA TOWER, DURGA TOWER, DURGA BIHAR COLONY, DURGAPURA, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate Mr. Puneet Singh, Advocate Dated : 20 May 2016 ORDER
1. This Revision Petition, by the Complainant, is directed against the order, dated 27.11.2014, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1 at Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 746 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has reversed the order, dated 22.03.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Rederessal Forum at Sawai Madhopur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 165 of 2012. By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Petitioner, the District Forum had, inter alia, directed the Respondents, the Finance Company, to refund a sum of ₹2,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit of the auction amount.
2. In short, the grievance of the Complainant was that after he was found successful in the auction held by the Finance Company, he had deposited a sum of ₹2,50,000/- with it on 31.03.2011. However, when he applied for registration of the vehicle in question i.e. a Bus, in his name, the Registration Authorities refused to do so on the ground that some litigation in relation to the auctioned bus was pending, with the result that he was unable to use the same for the purpose he had purchased it.
3. Finding substance in the Complaint, the District Forum accepted it and issued the afore-noted directions.
4. However, on the Finance Company taking the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission, the said direction has been overturned. While doing so, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that getting the vehicle transferred in his name, was the responsibility of the Complainant and, therefore, no deficiency in service could be alleged against the Finance Company, if for some reason the District Transport Office had refused to register the vehicle in the name of the Complainant.
5. Since, during the course of hearing, the stand of the Complainant was that the auctioned vehicle was not delivered to him even after the deposit of the sale consideration, vide order dated 08.04.2016, we had directed learned Counsel appearing for the Finance Company to produce the original document, showing the delivery of the subject bus to the Petitioner. In furtherance of the said order, an original affidavit, signed by the Complainant on 15.03.2011, has been placed before us. From a bare perusal of the said affidavit, attested by a notary public, it is evident that the said vehicle was got released by the Complainant from the Finance Company on 31.03.2011, even without insurance policy, at his own responsibility. A copy of the said affidavit has been supplied to learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant.
6. Therefore, insofar as the question of delivery of the vehicle to the Complainant is concerned, we are unable to accept the stand of the Complainant that the Bus still continues to be in the possession of the Finance Company. Nonetheless, as regards the assistance/cooperation on the part of the Finance Company to the Complainant in getting the vehicle registered in his name, it is stated before us by learned Counsel appearing for the Finance Company that all necessary cooperation shall be rendered by it to the Complainant, as and when it is asked for.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction.
8. The Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly with the above observations.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER