RP No.121 of 2013 is filed against order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.146 of 2008. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the OPs/Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and confirmed the order of the District Forum, allowing the complaint. Similarly, RP No.122 of 2013 is against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.147 of 2008. In this case also the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of OPs/Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd and confirmed the order of the District Forum, allowing the complaint.
2. Both matters emanate from identical sets of facts resulting in identical orders from the District Forum. In both cases, the appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission in the following terms:-
“From the record, it is established that the employees of the appellants-opposite parties got the relevant documents i.e. Registration Certificate, Route Permit etc illegally from the DTO Office, Jagadhari and thus, deprived the complainant to ply his vehicle to earn his livelihood as well as repay the financed amount. Moreover, the appellants-opposite parties did not comply with the orders of the District Consumer Forum in which appellants-opposite parties were directed to release the Registration Certificate and Route Permit etc of the vehicle owned by the complainant. Thus, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the observation made by the District Forum, as mentioned above, we are of the view that the appellants-opposite parties without any reasons retained the relevant documents of the vehicle with them. Their act and conduct stands proved on the record and they have rightly been held deficient in their services. The District Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case has rightly accepted the complaint and issued directions to the opposite parties as mentioned above. Thus, no interference in the impugned order is called for.”
3. Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, Advocate, representing the revision petitioners in these two matters, also agreed that the circumstances pertaining to the two transport vehicles were very similar and therefore, they could be taken up for disposal together. Accordingly, the two revision petitions are taken up for disposal through this common order.
4. The main issue involved in this case was failure of the OPs to hand over the registered documents as well as the route permit to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, he had applied for transfer of the vehicle in his name. District Transport Officer Yamuna Nagar, had also transferred the vehicle in his name from the name of the seller. However, two employees of Shriram Transport Chandigarh (OP-2) obtained these documents from the office of the DTO. Despite repeated requests, the registration certificate and the route permit were never returned to him. Due to this, he was neither able to get the vehicle insured in his name nor use it for transportation purposes. Allegedly, the default in payment of instalments of the loan was in this background. The written response of the OP before the District Forum merely carries a bland denial of this.
5. The District Forum gave an interim direction on 28.3.2007 requiring the RP/OP to release the registration certificate and route permit to the respondent/Complainant. Significantly, the OPs neither complied with this direction nor did they challenge it before the State Commission. Therefore, the District Forum has noted, in its final order of 18.12.2007, that the interim direction of 28.3.2007 had acquired finality qua the OPs/Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. In the final order the direction to return the registration certificate and route permit was reiterated by the District Forum directing the OPs to pay the Complainant Rs.10,000/- per month from 1.11.2006 till the release of the documents. The order of the District Forum, has been upheld in the impugned order.
6. Counsel for the revision petitioner was heard at length on this main issue of failure to hand over the registration documents as well as route permit to the Complainant in violation of the specific directions of the District Forum given on 28.3.2007. Learned counsel argued that their case before Fora below was that the registration documents and the route permit were a matter between the vendor of the vehicle and the purchaser. The revision petitioner, as the financing agency, has nothing to do with it. However, learned counsel is unable to point out what evidence was led before the Fora below on this specific issue. Even the written response before the District Forum is unable to substantiate this claim.
7. On behalf of the revision petitioner reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suryapal Singh Vs. Siddha Vinayak Motors & Anr. [II(2012) CPJ (SC)]. This is a matter in which the Apex Court had held that in a hire purchase agreement, financier is the real owner of the vehicle and a person who take the loan retains the vehicle only as Bailee/Trustee. The Financer has right to repossess the vehicle for non-payment of his instalments. However, learned counsel did not clarify as to how this decision is relevant to the facts of the present case. The real issue in the present case was different. It was inability of the Complaint to operate the vehicle resulting in default in repayment which in itself was caused by failure of the RP/OP to hand over the registration papers and the route permit.
8. It is contended in the revision petition that the burden of proof in this behalf rested with the Complainant himself. Allegedly, he had failed to produce any specific evidence in support of his claim. It needs to be pointed out that neither the revision petitioner nor the arguments of the counsel make any attempt to explain how this contention was pursued before the Fora below. It is therefore just an attempt to improve the case of the petitioner in revision. The District Forum was very right in holding that the interim direction of 28.3.2007 had acquired finality qua the OPs as it was not challenged before the State Commission.
9. In the result, I find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below. The revision petition Nos.121/2013 and 122/2013 are held to be devoid of any merit and are dismissed as such. No order as to costs. | 
