KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
REVISION PETITION.47/12
JUDGMENT DATED:15.01.2013
(Against the order in I.A.157/12 in CC.65/12 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad, dtd:19.06.2012)
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
The Branch Manager,
Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,
2nd floor, Sunshine Complex, : REVISION PETITIONER
T.B. Road, Palakkad.
(By Adv: M/s Pramod Chandran & C.S.Rajmohan)
Vs.
Nalini, W/o Unnikrishnan Nair,
Thazhathethil House,
Kalluvazhi.P.O, Thiruvazhiyode(via), : RESPONDENT
Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
This is a Revision Petition filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the CDRF, Palakkad in I.A.157/12 in CC.65/12 dated, June 19 2012.
2. The Revision Petitioner is the Branch Manager of Sreeram Transport Finance Company Limited, Palakkad who is the opposite party in the CC and respondent in the I.A. The revision counter petitioner/complainant filed the complaint before the Forum for getting back her Bajaj Mini Door Pick up van bearing registration No.KL-51-9671 and claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- and costs on the ground that the revision petitioner/opposite party from where she had availed a loan for purchasing the vehicle had seized the vehicle and sold it in auction without her permission.
3. The revision petitioner/opposite party contended that as the complainant defaulted payment of instalments she had surrendered the vehicle to the revision petitioner who after due intimation sold the vehicle in auction and claimed balance amount from the complainant.
4. During the pendency of the petition the complainant filed the above I.A seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The Forum by the impugned order ordered the revision petitioner to hand over the vehicle to the complainant. The opposite party/Finance Company Limited has challenged the said order in this Revision.
5. For the following reason we feel that the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. The main’ contention of the revision petitioner is that they have sold the vehicle in auction after due intimation to the complainant. That being so Revision Petitioner will not be in a position to hand over the vehicle to the complainant. Under these circumstances we set aside the impugned order of the Forum.
In the result the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Forum in I.A.157/12 dated, 19th June 2012 is set aside. The Forum shall dispose of the complaint within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT
M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER
VL.
