JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant purchased a Taxi Three Wheeler and got the said vehicle financed from the petitioner to the extent of Rs.1,55,000/-. The loan taken by the complainant was to be repaid in 36 monthly instalments. The case of the complainant is that the said vehicle was forcibly seized by the petitioner without any notice to him on 9.1.2006. An FIR alleging forcible seizure of the vehicle from him was also lodged by the complainant at the concerned police station. Being aggrieved from the forcible seizure of the vehicle, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the complainant being in financial difficulty had himself surrendered the vehicle along with its keys.

2.      The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

3.      The only issue involved in this petition is as to whether the complainant had willingly surrendered his vehicle or it was forcibly seized from his possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a notice dated 9.1.2006 issued by the petitioner to the complainant, which also purports to be signed by the complainant Ratan Singh Bhati at its   bottom. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant had signed the said letter in token of having surrendered the vehicle. I, however, find no merit in this contention. Had the complainant surrendered the vehicle of his own, he would have certainly written so while signing the  said letter/notice. The letter/notice dated 9.1.2006 required the complainant to pay arrears amounting to Rs.5780/- or to surrender the vehicle in the event of his failure to comply with the said notice. Had the complainant been unwilling to pay even the amount of Rs.5780/- demanded by the petitioner and wanted to surrender the vehicle, the petitioner which is a large company would certainly have insisted upon the complainant giving in writing that he was surrendering the vehicle of his own, on account of his financial problems. That having not been done, the obvious inference is that that the complainant had signed at the bottom of the aforesaid letter/notice dated 9.1.2006 only in acknowledgement that he having received the said notice. The aforesaid inference finds corroboration of the fact that soon after 9.1.2006, the complainant lodged an FIR with the police on 18.1.2006 lodging forcible snatching of the vehicle from him. That FIR resulted in a charge sheet having been filed against the persons named in the FIR, namely, Vishnu Dutt and Ramesh who had allegedly snatched the vehicle. A perusal of the order of the learned CJM, Bikaner dated 16.3.2012 would show that in fact the complainant settled with the accused persons and it was pursuant to the said settlement that he turned hostile  as far as the identity of the accused persons was concerned and consequently they were acquitted. The order passed by the learned CJM would show that despite having turned hostile as regards identity of the accused persons, the complainant reiterated that he had been threatened  and that the Taxi forcibly taken away though he could not say who had taken the vehicle. Thus, the complainant maintained that the vehicle was forcibly snatched from him. Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the case of the petitioner that the complainant had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to it.

4.      No other contention is advanced. Hence, the order passed by the Fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.