RAJ PAL SHARMA Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is directed against the order dated 01.04.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Dharamshala, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3, by respondent No.1, has been allowed as against the appellant only, and a direction given to him to refund a sum of Rs. 77,000/ -, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, from the date of complaint, to the date of payment of aforesaid amount of money and also to pay Rs. 5,000/ -, on account of compensation and an equal amount of money, by way of litigation expenses.

(2.) KEHAR Singh, respondent No.1, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that vide agreement, Annexure C -1, executed on 28th August, 2008, he purchased a secondhand vehicle from the present appellant, who was impleaded as opposite party No.3, in the complaint. It was alleged that as per agreement, Annexure C -1, the price of the vehicle was settled at Rs. 1,72,000/ -, out of which a sum of Rs. 77,000/ -, had been paid to the appellant and the remaining amount of Rs. 95,000/ -, was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 4,465/ -, to Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company -respondent No.2, herein, who was impleaded as opposite party No.1. It was stated that respondent No.1 -complainant had been paying the instalments regularly to Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company, but on 28th January, 2009, respondent No.3 -Rajinder Kumar, who was impleaded as opposite party No.2 in the main complaint, had forcibly taken away the vehicle, when it was parked at complainant's place. A report was lodged with the police on 05.02.2009, but the police took no action against the appellant or respondents No.2 and 3. So, respondent No.1 -complainant filed a complaint seeking issuance of directions to the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3, to return the vehicle or to refund the money paid by him towards the price of the vehicle, with interest. He also prayed for award of damages and litigation expenses.

(3.) COMPLAINT was contested by the present appellant as also respondent No.3 - Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar, in his reply, stated that he was the registered owner of the vehicle and that he never sold the vehicle to the appellant or for that matter to any other person and that it was he, who had paid all the instalments to the financier, i.e. respondent No.2 - Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company. He stated that all the documents of the vehicle, including registration certificate were with him and that after he discharged his liability, under the hire purchase agreement, which was made between him and Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company, a 'no objection certificate' was issued in his favour by the aforesaid finance company on the basis of which he approached the registering authority for removing the name of the financier from the registration certificate.