STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                                         Revision Petition No.02 of 2022

   Date of the Institution:31.01.2022

                                                       Date of Decision:17.02.2022

1.      Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited-101-105, First Floor, B-Wing, Shiv Chambers, Sector-11, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai Through its MD Phone No.40657575.

2.      Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited Fatehabad Branch through its Branch Manager, Bhuna Mod, Above IDBI Bank, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. 

                                                                                   .…. Petitioners

Versus

Manoj Bansal S/o Shri Ram Vilas Bansal R/o Bhattu Road, Ftehabad, Near Kapil Karyana Store, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                                  .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.A S Narang, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.

Present:-    Mr. Puneet Tuli, counsel for the petitioners.

                    Mr. D.K. Jangra, counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

A.S. NARANG, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                   Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited & another (Petitioners) have filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 27.01.2022, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehabad (DCDRC, Fatehabad) has allowed the application filed by Mr.        Manoj Bansal (Respondent) for the release of the vehicle.

 2.               We will come to the impugned order a little later. Some background facts be mentioned first. It appears that the respondent had got financed Truck bearing registration No.RJ-07-JC-0097 from the petitioners, which had financed around Rs.12,00,000/- to him. Respondent defaulted in the payment of some installments and his vehicle was taken into possession by the petitioners. As per the respondent, he also made some payments after the vehicle was taken into possession by the petitioners. However, the vehicle was not released. Ultimately, respondent filed the complaint before the DCDRC, Fatehabad against the petitioners and requested that the vehicle be released.

3.                With this background, we come to the impugned order. It appears that this case was fixed before the DCDRC, Fatehabad on 24.01.2022. On that day, petitioners had put in appearance before the DCDRC, Fatehabad. The DCDRC, Fatehabad heard the parties on the application for the release of the vehicle and adjourned the case to 27.01.2022. On 27.01.2022, the DCDRC, Fatehabad after hearing the parties allowed the application and directed the petitioners to release the vehicle. The DCDRC, Fatehabad also directed the respondent to make the payment of installments.

4.                Aggrieved by the order passed by the DCDRC, Fatehabad, petitioners have filed this Revision Petition.

5.                We have heard Mr. Punit Tuli, counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. D.K. Jhangra, counsel for the respondent.

6.                Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Punit Tuli, counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of the law. By the impugned order, the DCDRC, Fatehabad, instead of disposing of the application for releasing the vehicle, has allowed the complaint itself. Mr.Tuli submitted that the DCDRC, FAtehabad did not permit the petitioners to file written statement. In fact, the respondent had surrendered the vehicle himself. Respondent is a defaulter. Not only he did not make the payment of due installments in this case, he also sold two vehicles which he had got financed from the petitioners, without paying the amount due. Mr. Punit Tuli submitted that the DCDRC, Fatehabad was not justified in releasing the vehicle without giving proper opportunity to the petitioners to present their case. Accordingly, the impugned order be set aside.

7.                Per contra, Mr. D.K. Jhangra, counsel for the respondent submitted that the vehicle was not surrendered by the respondent. In fact, petitioners had forcibly snatched it from the driver of respondent. Mr. Jhangra submitted that this amounts to taking the law in their own hands, which cannot be permitted. Even after the vehicle was taken into possession by petitioners, respondent made the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and odd sum to the petitioners. Respondent would make further payment. Mr. Jhangra further submitted that despite the order of the DCDRC, Fatehabad, petitioners have not released the vehicle. The Revision Petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed.

8.                Though, we are of the considered view that the order of the DCDRC is just in principle, yet we are of the considered view that in order to balance conflicting interest of the parties, it would be proper in case the respondent is directed to pay the total sum due to the petitioners as on today in respect of the vehicle in question before it is released to the respondent. Further, the respondent gives security to the satisfaction of the DCDRC in respect of the payment of future installments. We order accordingly. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the DCDRC, Fatehabad and to the parties. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced in open court.

February 17th, 2022                          Suresh Chander Kaushik                A S Narang                                                                     Member                                             Judicial Member

                                                            Addl. Bench                                      Addl. Bench   

R.K.