Back
INDER JIT SINGH
Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. (Formerly Equitas Finance Ltd. ) – Appellant
Versus
Buta Singh – Respondent
ORDER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 19.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 267/2017 in which order dated 16.01.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 82/2016 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the State Commission.
2. The Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party-1 before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent-1 before the State Commission in FA/267/2017 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No. 82/2016.
3. The present Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 57 days as pointed out by the Registry. IA/10593/2018 has been filed for Condonation Delay. Delay in filing the RP is condoned after cons
Deficiency in service occurs when repossession is conducted unlawfully without proper notice, violating consumer protection laws.
Revisional Jurisdiction – In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by Forum & SC, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
Vehicle’s possession taken by financer forcibly and in absence of any prior notice to the Respondent, it comes under unfair trade practice.
The court emphasized the importance of evidence in proving delivery of goods in deficiency of service cases.
The requirement of substantial evidence to support claims of manufacturing defects in consumer protection cases is essential for claims to be upheld.
The court affirmed that the vehicle was legally repossessed due to the complainant's failure to repay the loan, with no proven defects in the vehicle.
(1) Evidence - The District Forum in pursuance of its mandate under Section 13 was required to have the necessary evidence produced before it prior to drawing an adverse inference.(2) Order to replac....
Well reasoned orders – Both the State Commission and District Forum have issued well-reasoned orders, duly and appropriately addressing the issues raised by Petitioner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
