SHRIRAM FINANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SOMDHAR DIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted revision petitions arise out of common order dated 22.7.2011, passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (short, "State Commission"). The State Commission vide impugned order disposed of appeal Nos.90 as well as 126 of 2011 preferred by the respondent/complainant as well as petitioner/o.p in complaint no.32 of 2009 which was decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (short, "District Forum") vide order dated 21.1.2011 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation to the respondent and to provide registration book of Vehicle no.CG 13-A-4031 for transferring the same in the name of respondent and also to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) Brief facts are that the vehicle No.C.G.13-A-4031 (Trailer) was earlier financed to one Kamal Kumar Sahu by petitioner/o.p - Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, who defaulted in payment of installments of finance and that is why the vehicle was repossessed by the petitioner from that person and then was put for resale. The complainant, Respondent/ complainant agreed to purchase that vehicle and finance was provided by the same petitioner to him. The amount of finance was Rs.8,50,000/-, which was to be repaid by the respondent in 35 installments.

(3.) As per the case of the respondent before the District Forum, the vehicle was delivered by the petitioner to the respondent on payment of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash at the time of purchase of the vehicle. Remaining amount of finance was to be paid by the respondent in the installments. It has also been agreed by the petitioner that registration book and other papers of the vehicle, will be provided to the respondent by the petitioner shortly, but, thereafter in spite of repeated requests made by the respondent, those documents were not provided by the petitioner. In the meantime, installments were being regularly paid by the respondent to the petitioner and in all Rs.2,61,000/- were paid by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner in spite of that payment and though it has not provided necessary documents to the respondent, has repossessed the vehicle on the pretext that the respondent was defaulter. The vehicle could not be plied by the respondent on road, as necessary papers of the vehicle were not provided by the petitioner and so, the respondent was not in a position to deposit the installments. The petitioner repossessed the vehicle without any previous notice to the respondent. Then, the consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.