B NARASIMHA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, delay of 35 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

(2.) This revision petition has been filed by the complainant/petitioner against the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ('State Commission' for short) by which the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by directing that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-towards compensation to the petitioner and also Rs.2,000/- to him by way of costs.

(3.) The complainant herein is the petitioner and the three respondents were opposite party nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively. Respondent no.1 is the Regional Transport Officer and respondent no.2 is the Finance Co. whereas respondent no.3 is the Ex Managing Partner of respondent no.2 Finance Co. The case of the complainant is that he is driver by profession and approached respondent no.2 for financial assistance to the extent of Rs.50,000/-for purchasing lorry AIS 4356 for a total consideration of Rs.2,25,500/-for which a financial agreement was entered into on 5.3.2005. The balance amount was paid by the complainant himself. After a few days of taking the loan, the petitioner made arrangements for the funds from other sources and paid back the entire amount of Rs.50,000/-along with interest to respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 while acknowledging the amount issued a payment schedule with Form no.35, i.e., termination of agreement of hire purchase and no objection letter to the respondent no.1 for cancellation of hypothecation and release of the vehicle. But respondent no.1 declined to cancel the hypothecation of the vehicle by stating that he had received some objections from respondent no.2. Respondent no.2, according to the petitioner, seized the lorry without giving any notice to the petitioner. Respondent no.2 also sent a letter to the petitioner informing that some amount was due to be paid by him pertaining to this vehicle and called upon the petitioner to pay the said amount by specified date failing which, respondent no.2 would dispose of the vehicle. The petitioner replied by saying that he had paid the entire amount to the Managing Partner (respondent no.3) of respondent no.2 Finance Co. and no dues were left to be paid by him to respondent no.2. Failing to get a positive response from respondent no.2 in the matter, petitioner lodged a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking direction against respondents for release of vehicle, payment of Rs.1,00,000/-as loss of earnings and mental agony with interest @ 12% and cost of Rs.2,000/-.