PUSPAJIT MONDAL Vs. LAP AUTHOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the order dated 20th March, 2009 passed in S.C. (State Commission) Case No. F.A./08/321 by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal thereby confirming the order passed in C.D.F. (Consumer Dispute Forum) Case No. 174 of 2005 by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Hooghly. The factual background in a nutshell is that the Petitioners purchased a four-wheeler from Lap Automobiles under the finance scheme on higher purchase basis from Indian Lease Development Ltd. through the Lap Automobiles. The Petitioners initially made payment of Rs. 1,15,001/- including registration fee as per instruction of Opposite Party No. 1, Lap Automobiles. The rest due amount was to be paid in Thirty equal monthly instalments of Rs. 3,824/-. As security Petitioner No. 2 issued Fifteen blank cheques drawn on S.B.I., Tribeni Branch. The Petitioners had paid EMI for more than eight months. On receipt of certain documents in connection with the vehicle, the petitioners came to know that, in fact, Rs. 170/- had been paid as tax and Rs. 920/- was paid towards registration for the vehicle by Lap Automobiles out of total sum of Rs. 1,15,001/-. Being suspicious, the Petitioners asked for detailed statement from Lap Automobiles in respect of the loan status but in vain. They then approached the Financier. On receipt of the statement of accounts from the Opposite Party No. 2/Financier, the Petitioners came to learn that 56,040/- had been paid out of 1,15,001/- by the Petitioners. Opposite party No. 1, Lap Automobiles, thus rendered illegal and unfair trade practice. The Opposite Parties had deceived and misdirected the Petitioners in the entire transactions. The Petitioners as such filed C.D.F. Case No. 174 of 2005 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Hooghly. The said Forum passed an order on 9th April, 2008. Challenging the said order, S.C. Case No. F.A./08/321 was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the impugned order dated 20th March, 2009. In this backdrop, this is the revisional application.

(2.) The learned Advocate, appearing for the Petitioners, has contended that the order passed by the State Commission is very cryptic. The finding of the State Commission is without any reason. It may be interfered with and set aside.

(3.) The learned Advocate, appearing for the Opposite Parties, has contended that this revisional application is not maintainable. He has referred to section 15 as well as section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He has contended that if an order is passed by the State Commission against a person, the person who is aggrieved by the said order may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a time fixed. The revisional application has been filed by the Petitioners avoiding the said specific provisions. The revisional application is as such not maintainable. He has cited decisions HINDUSTAN LAW BOOK COMPANY v. GANESH SRIVASTAV, 2005 2 CalHN 554 and : BISWANATH ALIAS DEBKUMAR PATHAK v. SHYAMAL KUMAR PATHAK, 1995 1 CalLT 127.