BALMUKUND Vs. SHRI RAM TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, M.P. (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 2164/2012 dated 09.02.2018.

(2.) In Complaint case, it was stated that the Petitioner/Complainant got financed a vehicle Eicher Truck No. 09 JE 3191 from the Respondent/Opposite Party for earning his livelihood, which was registered in the name of Rakesh Mishra as per the records of the Respondent. The Petitioner had paid Rs.5,400.00 as tax for the vehicle, Rs.16,157/- towards insurance amount and Rs.40,000.00 to the Respondent. The Respondent, however, did not provide any documents to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had further deposited instalments of Rs.15,000.00, Rs.12,000.00 and Rs.15,000.00. Petitioner's contention was that the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the Petitioner by the Respondent, due to which he could not use the vehicle. On 13.10.2009, the Respondent served a notice on him for deposit of Rs.94,550. Thereafter on 03.03.2010 when the Petitioner reached AB Road, Rau, the Respondent seized the vehicle. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent alleging deficiency in service.

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Respondent contending that the vehicle was previously registered in the name of Rakesh Mishra. On 03.05.2008, the Petitioner had given Rs.40,000.00 to the Respondent, but further instalments were not deposited on time. As per the contention of the Respondent, the Petitioner purchased the vehicle directly from with Rakesh Mishra and gave assurance to deposit instalments on time. The Respondent financed Rs.3,60,000.00 to the Petitioner and a loan agreement was executed on 11.06.2008 in the name of Rakesh Mishra and loan amount was deposited in his loan account but the loan account could not be closed. Recovery notice was served to the Petitioner by the Respondent, but the Petitioner did not deposit the instalments on time. Thus, the Respondent had taken possession of the vehicle after following due process and prayed for cancellation of the Complaint of the Petitioner.