SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NEERAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed under Sec. '""21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act') against order dtd. 27/4/2016 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla ('State Commission') in FA Nos. 216 and 242 of 2015, wherein the Appeal filed by the Complainant was partly allowed and the same by the Petitioner/OP was dismissed, upholding the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla ('District Forum') order in CC No.192 of 2009 dtd. 4/9/2015, with modification.

(2.) For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the original Complaint before the District Forum. Sh. Neeraj is referred to as the Complainant/Respondent and Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is referred to as the Petitioner/OPs.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a vehicle with Registration No. HP-09A-1024 in 2003, which was initially financed by Mahindra and Mahindra. He regularly paid the instalments due until September 2007. During this time, Satinder, an agent of OP-1 approached him with a proposal for refinancing the vehicle at a reasonable interest rate. The refinance loan was to be repaid within 18 months, according to the agent. At that time, the Complainant owed Rs.1,60,000.00 to the previous financer. Attracted by the proposal, he refinanced the vehicle with OP-1 and completed all formalities, but he was not given any documents. On 25/10/2008, his vehicle, which was parked in the parking lot of Sh. Lalit Kumar in Prem Nagar, Kotkhai, was taken by the OPs without his consent. He filed a police report, but he was pressurised into a compromise by authorities. Later, on 4/11/2008, he visited the office of OP-1 with cash, as per the compromise, to retrieve his vehicle. However, he noticed that parts of the vehicle were replaced, and when he requested the original parts, the OP refused. Subsequently, he served a legal notice to OP demanding return of the vehicle in its original condition, but no action was taken. As a result, the complainant filed a complaint seeking the return of the vehicle in its original condition or in alternative payment of Rs.5,25,000.00 along with punitive compensation of Rs.2,00,000..00