KAMAL & CO Vs. HIMANSHU SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 966 of 2012 Kamal & Company Vs. Himanshu Sharma & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent No.1 booked TATA Safari Car with OP No. 1/Petitioner after depositing Rs.50,000/-. Rupees 2,50,000/- were deposited after one month and delivery of car was taken and it was got insured. It was further submitted that OP No. 2/Respondent No.2 assured to sanction loan, but later on refused to sanction loan on the pretext that complainant was below 21 years of age. Later on, complainant provided cheques of his mother and OP No. 2 assured loan facility and intimated complainant that loan has been sanctioned which is to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of Rs.16,557/-. It was further submitted that in May, 2008, vehicle was forcibly possessed by OP on the ground that loan was not sanctioned. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OPs resisted complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to refund Rs.3,28,000/- with 18% interest and OPs were further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as charged process fee, Rs.5,000/- for frequent visits and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the complaint. Appeal filed by OP No.1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.