CITIBANK N A Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR PATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 1.6.2011 passed by Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisison, Cuttack (for short 'State Commission') as well as order dated 22.1.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhubaneshwar (for short 'District Forum').

(2.) Brief facts are that complainant/respondent No. 1, purchased a TATA Indica car to use it for commercial purpose to maintain his livelihood. Total cost of the car was Rs.3,42,000. It was purchased on finance provided by the petitioner. Respondent No.l made down payment of Rs. 66,690 and availed loan of Rs. 2,75,308, which was repayable in 60 EMIs at the rate of Rs. 6,200. Respondent No.l paid 60 post-dated cheques for the said amount. Petitioner did not furnish accounts statement to respondent No.l, as to the outstanding dues payable by him. However, the vehicle was un-authorizedly repossessed on 22.10.2006. Respondent No.l approached the petitioner for release of the vehicle but it was not heeded to. Hence, respondent filed a complaint before District Forum.

(3.) In reply, petitioner stated that, as respondent No.l did not pay the instalments in time, it was repossessed pursuant to the stipulation in the contract, under which the loan was borrowed by him. Some post dated cheques bounced for which some instalments could not be realized. As several instalments were due, the vehicle was repossessed and it was resold on 30.11.2006 to one Raj Motor of Chhattisgarh State. Since, vehicle was repossessed and resold by the petitioner, as per stipulations under the agreement, respondent No.l deserves no relief.