KULWANT SINGH PANESAR Vs. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.10.2009 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 88/2009, "Kulwant Singh Panesar Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Company", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 20.01.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Raipur, in CC No. 99/2008, dismissing the said complaint filed by the present petitioner, was set aside.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that a Tata Truck, bearing registration No. CG12C 1569 is stated to have been purchased by Sunil Kumar Singh Thakur, the General Power of Attorney holder of Kulwant Singh Panesar in the name of the said Kulwant Singh Panesar after raising funds from the respondent/OP, Shriram Transport Finance Company, repayable in monthly instalments. The said vehicle was, however, seized by the Financer Company on 28.04.2008 on account of non-payment of instalments and was parked at New Taj Parking Yard, Ring Road No. 2, Raipur, by them. On 08.05.2008, a sum of Rs.82,500.00 was deposited by the GPA holder with the OP Financer as remaining instalments of the loan, upon which, the vehicle was ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. It is alleged that on the very next day, i.e., on 09.05.2008, when the GPA holder went to the New Taj Parking Yard to get his truck back, he found that many valuable/major parts of the vehicle were found missing/stolen. Around 260 litres of diesel in the truck, had also been taken away. The matter was brought to the notice of the Branch Manager of the Financer Company, who sent a person to fit some old parts in the vehicle, which was opposed by the GPA holder. The matter was reported to the Police and a written complaint was also filed before the District Forum. However, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, saying that the complainant did not want to pay the parking charges for the parking yard and moreover, he had sold the vehicle to Sunil Kumar Singh Thakur. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission.

(3.) The State Commission allowed the appeal vide impugned order and directed as follows:-