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
HDFC Bank Limited VS Syed Mushir Abbas - Consumer (2024): Cited as reliance by a party ("He relied on Manager ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakar Kaur & Ors."), indicating positive treatment as persuasive authority.
Shree Mata Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. VS Bhimappa Hanamantappa Raddi - Consumer (2024): References ICICI Bank Limited (2013) and ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar Sharma (2022) alongside other cases like Veena Singh and Triloki Nath Singla, suggesting reliance or application in context.
Sher Singh VS Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. - Consumer (2024): Multiple citations to Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S.Vijayalaxmi 2012 (1) JCC (Supreme Court) 613 and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma 2008 (3) JCC 1572, with repetition (e.g., "Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi"), indicating strong reliance or following.
Seema Jeetendra Longani VS Citicorp Finance India Ltd. - Consumer (2024): Explicitly "following the earlier judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs" and references to Sudhir Mehra and Trilok Singh, showing it was followed.
Geeta Rani VS Sonali Auto (P) Ltd. - Consumer (2025): Cites Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 with "has held that," indicating the case was followed or applied for its holding on Section provisions.
Christi Sahitya Prasarak VS Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2022): Simple factual reference to "The Opposite Party is a finance Company. 4." No treatment indicators; appears as descriptive context.
Vivek Poddar VS Shambhoo Dayal Agrawal - Consumer (2024): Cites Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269 alongside Sunil Kumar Maity, with "Contrary to it," suggesting contextual use in opposition affidavit, but no explicit treatment like followed or distinguished.
Deputy Director, Coffee Board VS K. A. Roy - Consumer (2024): Discusses Ltd. in context of loan restructuring and small coffee growers' benefits ("cannot deny a small coffee grower the benefits"), appears as applied or distinguished factually, but no clear treatment keyword.
Rajbir Singh Brar VS Ess Kay Fincorp Ltd. - Consumer (2025): References Ltd. (supra) with numbering ("Ltd. (supra) 22."), indicating citation to a prior case in the same thread, neutral shorthand reference.
Angeline Mohana Johnson VS Manager, State Bank of India - Consumer (2025): No direct citation to precedents; discusses respondent bank's obligations and representations, purely factual/narrative context without treatment signals.
Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. VS Paddam Srinu - Consumer (2025): Factual description of Indusind Bank Ltd. transactions and documents (e.g., "The vehicle was hypothecated vide Hypothecation Agreement"), no treatment indicators for any cited cases.
Deficiency in service occurs when repossession is conducted unlawfully without proper notice, violating consumer protection laws.
Compensation must align proportionately with the actual damages incurred, and excessive punitive measures without rational basis contravene principles of justice.
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.
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
