Judgment:
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member)
This Revision Petition is directed against the order dt.15.07.2013 made in I.A.No.164/2013 in C.C.No.144/2013 on the file of District Forum Consumer Forum , Ranga Reddy Dist.
The facts leading to this Revision Petition in brief are as follows:
The revision petitioner/petitioner/complainant has purchased Setwin Bus from the Setwin Office, under self-employment scheme, by obtaining the vehicle loan of Rs.8,83,993/- + child loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- through opposite parties 1 and 2 finance company. The said loan along with interest comes to Rs.12,46,430/- which is to be paid in 57 equal monthly instalments at Rs.21,870/- per EMI. The respondents seized the vehicle in the month of January, 2012, as the petitioner has not paid November, 2011 instalment. As per the direction in the Writ Petition No.883/2012 filed by the petitioner, he has paid Rs.1 lakh to the respondents/opp.parties and got released the vehicle in April, 2012. As the loan period was completed by December, 2011, when the complainant approached the respondents/opposite parties on 09.07.2012 for clearance, they gave statement of account for Rs.5,31,655/- i.e. for Rs.55,017/- EMI due + OD Charges of Rs.1,98,948/- + Bullet loan of Rs.2,77,690/-. As the petitioner has not taken bullet loan, he denied the statement, but the opposite parties refused to settle the loan amount amicably.
On 31.8.2012, when the petitioner kept the Setwin Bus with the mechanic for repairs, the respondents seized the vehicle from the mechanic without any intimation to the complainant. When the opposite parties refused to settle the loan amount, the petitioner/complainant filed C.C.No.656/2012 along with I.A.No.342/2012 before the District Forum-1, Hyderabad for releasing the vehicle. The District Forum directed the petitioner to pay Rs.55,017/- to the opposite parties. Accordingly, the petitioner/complainant paid the said amount to the opposite party. Instead of releasing the vehicle, the opposite parties filed I.A.No.62/2013 in C.C.No.656/2012 challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. The petition was allowed and the complaint was returned for presentation before the District Forum having jurisdiction. The said complaint was filed before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District and the same was renumbered as C.C.No.144/2013. The petitioner filed petition in I.A.No.164/2013 to release the vehicle from the custody of the opposite parties. The respondents/opposite parties filed counter opposing the application. Upon hearing both sides, the District Forum allowed the petition, directing the petitioner/complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondents/opposite parties on or before 22.7.2013 and after receiving the said amount, the respondents shall handover the vehicle to the petitioner on acknowledgement and if the said amount is not paid on or before 22.7.2013, the I.A. shall stand dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/complainant preferred the above revision contending that the District Forum failed to see that the complainant availed loan of Rs.8,83,993/- for purchasing the Setwin Bus from opposite parties and another personal loan of Rs.1,50,000/-, which is repayable in 57 EMIs at Rs.21,870/-. That the District Forum failed to see that initially the opposite parties seized the vehicle on 21.12.2011, without issuing proper notice and that as per the directions given by the Honble High Court of A.P. in Writ Petition No.883/2012, the complainant paid Rs.1 lakh and got the vehicle released in April,2012.
The District Forum failed to see that the loan period was completed by December,2011 and when the complainant approached the opposite parties for settlement and for issue of NOC, on 09.07.2012 the opposite party gave a statement of account stating that the complainant has to pay Rs.5,31,655/- i.e. Rs.55,017/- towards EMI due,. OD charges of Rs.1,98,948/- and Bullet Loan of Rs.3,77,690/-. That the complainant never obtained bullet loan. When the complainant objected for the same, the opposite parties refused to settle the same amicably.
That the District Forum failed to see that on 31.8.2012, the opposite party seized the vehicle from the mechanic shop which was given for repairs, without issuing prior notice and that since 31.8.2012, the vehicle is with the opposite parties only. They have not even released the vehicle even after payment of Rs.55,017/- as per the interim orders made in I.A.No.342/2012. That the District Forum erred in further directing the complainant to pay Rs.2,50,000/-, for release of the vehicle on or before 22.7.2013. The District Forum failed to see that the subject Setwin Bus is the bread and butter of the complainant, which was given under self employment to the complainant and three others. That the District Forum failed to see that apart from the loss of income due to seizure of the vehicle since 31.8.2012, the vehicle is also getting depreciated as the same is standing idle, apart from accumulation of interest. Therefore, the impugned order of the District Forum is to be modified allowing the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be reviewed and modified as prayed for by the Revision Petitioner/Complainant?
It is an admitted fact that the Revision Petitioner/complainant filed a Consumer Complaint in C.C.No.144/2013 against the respondents/opp.parties seeking direction to release the vehicle to the complainant and to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the Revision Petitioner/complainant herein and to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and loss and Rs.3000/- towards costs of the complaint. The Revision Petitioner/complainant filed I.A.No.342/2012 and I.A.No.164/2013 for release of the seized vehicle from the custody of the respondents/opp.parties herein for plying, pending disposal of the main case. It is therefore obvious that the relief sought under I.A.Nos.342/2012 and 164/2013 and the relief sought under the main case is one and the same i.e. for release of the seized vehicle, which is to be decided on adjudication of main case only. It is settled law that the relief sought for in the main case cannot be granted in interlocutory application, pending disposal of the case. The impugned order of the District Forum amounts to granting relief in the main case which is not permissible under law.
Further, the orders passed by the Courts without having any jurisdiction would not bind upon the parties to proceedings. Therefore, the orders passed in I.A.No.342/2012 by the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad is not binding on the respondents/opp.parties. In addition to that, the said order has been set aside and was not in force as on today, in view of the orders of this Commission passed in R.P.No.69/2012. Admittedly, the revision petitioner/complainant committed default in payment of instalments.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, in our considered view the impugned order of the District Forum is not sustainable under law. However, the respondents/opposite parties have not filed any revision or appeal questioning the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is binding on the respondents/opp.parties.
Admittedly the complainant committed default in payment of monthly instalments. The contention of the respondents/opposite parties is that the Revision Petitioner/complainant is due to pay a sum of Rs.5,17,051/- as on 31.10.2012 as per their statement. Whether the above contention of the respondents/opposite parties is true or not would be decided on evidence, at the time of disposal of the main complaint. It is not known whether the respondents/opp.parties have withdrawn Rs.55,017/- deposited by the complainant as per the orders in I.A.No.342/2012. Therefore, if the amount is not withdrawn by respondents/opposite parties, the petitioners/complainant can withdraw the said amount. Under these circumstances, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the District Forum.
In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, but without costs.