SATYA NARAYAN ADHIKARI Vs. MOYANK PODDAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/ complainant Satya Narayan Adhikari, against the order dated 28.4.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, (in short 'the State Commission'), passed in FA No. 322 of 2009.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 30.6.2004, the complainant revisionist purchased TATA Indica Car vide invoice No. SB ML/INB/B HM/35; from Shree Bharat Motors Ltd., Gopalpur Junction, Berhampur Ganjam for a consideration of Rs. 3,65,780. The revisionist got his car financed from the respondent company and made a down payment of Rs. 30,780 and issued thirty-five post-dated cheques in favour of the respondent No. 1 for repaying the loan in equal monthly instalments of Rs. 11,151 each. As per version of the revisionist, till 1.10.2006, the revisionist has made total payment of Rs. 3,13,775 in the shape of cheques and drafts and cash. On 4.1.2007, after returning from Aska, the car was parked at Bijipur Junction of Berhampur at 2 p.m. and the driver was taking his lunch, the respondent through their musclemen took forceful possession of the vehicle. On 7.6.2004, the revisionist filed a complaint C.D. 85/2007 before the Ganjam District Consumer Redressal For um, Ganjam, (in short "the District Forum"). On 18.3.2009, the District Forum, directed the respondent to deliver back possession of the vehicle to the complainant with compensation of Rs. 20,000.

(3.) On 16.4.2009, the respondents filed appeal No. 322/2009 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 25.6.2009 set aside the order of the District Forum by observing that the complainant selected one Forum and after losing in the said Forum came to the Consumer Forum. On 30.7.2009, the revisionist moved this Commission in Revision Petition No. 3169/ 2009 against the order of the State Commission. On 5.4.2010, the National Commission set aside the order of the State Commission by observing that the scope of inquiry before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur in Criminal Proceeding and the scope of inquiry - before the District Forum are entirely different and directed parties to appear before the State Forum on 8.7.2010. On 2.8.2010, the matter was fixed for hearing on point of admission. The revisionist disputed admission of the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of second proviso to Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act or deficit amount of Rupees Ten Thousand deposited instead of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand for purpose of admission of appeal but the State Commission admitted the appeal. The State Commission vide its order dated 28.4.2011 allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.