ROYAL AUTOMOBILES Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite party is in revision before us. 1. Respondent-complainant wanted to buy a 16-seater bus for a sum of Rs. 2,16,396/- from the petitioner. Under the agreement the vehicle was to remain registered in the name of the petitioner till all the payments are made. Its registration No. was MP-07/F-0059. It is not disputed that all the payments were made by the respondent in course of time including the road tax. Complaint was that the respondent did not deposit the road tax. While the vehicle was in possession of the respondent, petitioner wanted it for a shortwhile for some private work but then it did not return the vehicle to the respondent. Petitioner made various excuses and then ultimately it refused to hand over the vehicle. This compelled the respondent to approach the District Forum. His complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that the respondent had not alleged that he had purchased the mini bus for "self-employment because he was an unemployed young man", otherwise, District Forum on merit held in favour of the complainant. It may be noticed that the petitioner was absent throughout before the District Forum.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent filed appeal before the State Commission. After going through the records State Commission was of the opinion that there was sufficient indication that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for his self-employment. Accordingly, State Commission held in favour of the complainant. Before the State Commission, petitioner did appear. State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the mini bus to the respondent within one month from the date of the order and also to get the vehicle repaired, if necessary. Petitioner was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. In the alternative it was directed that petitioner shall refund Rs. 2,16,395/- together with 12% interest from 16.2.1994 till payment. If the order was not complied within one month, the rate of interest was to be increased @ 18% per annum after one month.

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for 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, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.