TATA FINANCE LTD. Vs. SUDEEP KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 07.12.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 89 of 2003 filed by the present petitioner, vide which the State Commission had dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi dated 30.11.2001 in case No. TC/2414/98. The complaint had been filed before the District Forum on 06.03.1998 by Sugan Chand Jain, resident of C-1/B, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. The present respondent Sudeep Kumar Jain is the son and legal heir of late Sugan Chand Jain.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. is a finance company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and deals in financing of vehicles under various schemes. It has been stated in the petition that on 24.12.1997, the petitioner M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. conducted an auction of various vehicles including one car Maruti 800 bearing registration No. TN 01 J0306, which was sold to the father of the respondent Sugan Chand Jain for Rs. 1,25,000/- on 'As is where is basis' against cash receipt No. DE 996605 issued in favour of the respondent. The delivery of vehicle was also given to the purchaser and a photocopy of the registration certificate was handed over to him, while the original registration certificate was sent to the Central Registration Authority, Madras (now Chennai), along with application for deletion of endorsement of 'hire-purchase' in respect of the original hirer M/s. Kwvai Annapoorna Foods & Beverages Ltd. The above facts have been stated in the complaint dated 06.03.1998 filed by the complainant also, except saying that the car was taken in auction. The petitioner says that along with copy of registration certificate, form No. 29 and form No. 30 and various other documents were also handed over to the respondent so that the respondent was able to get the said vehicle transferred in his name. The complainant has stated however, that incomplete papers were handed over to him for the said car; form no. 28 was also required to be given duly attested from the authority from where the car belonged but the said form was not given to them by M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. In addition, only a single copy of form No. 30 was given, whereas duplicate copies are required. The case of the complainant is that the till today, it has not been possible to get the car transferred in their name due to non-receipt of papers form the petitioner and hence, they are not able to use and run this vehicle. The complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for mental harassment, Rs. 2,000/- for advocate fees and Rs. 1,000/- as transit charges and also requested for payment of interest @ 24% on the sale value of the car i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/-. The District Forum vide their order passed on 30.11.2002, directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as costs and damages for giving the vehicle to the complainant without getting the same transferred in his name and also stated that the petitioner/opposite party should pay full price to the complainant, in case they wanted to take the vehicle back from the complainant. An appeal against this order was filed before the State Commission and the State Commission vide their order dated 07.12.2007 dismissed the appeal saying that the petitioner had delayed the transfer of the vehicle by not providing the requisite assistance and material for transfer and not furnishing the requisite documents.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.