- (1.) The order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in S.C. Case No. F.A. 68 of 2011 allowing the appeal in part and directed the compensation to be paid without recording any reasons and/or findings thereupon is assailed in this revisional application.
(2.) The opposite party no.1 took a loan of Rs.11 lakhs from the petitioner for purchase of a commercial vehicle (truck), and executed Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement on May 30, 2008 to be paid in monthly installments. Some installments are paid but thereafter a default was committed. The petitioner further alleged that while the said vehicle was plying between Haldia and Tata with loaded vegetable oil, it was intercepted and forcible possession of the said vehicle was taken by the petitioner. The opposite party no.1 lodged an FIR with the local police station and a case was registered against the petitioner. By an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, the trucks and goods were released and the possession was handed over to the opposite party no.1 but the papers for plying the vehicles have not been handed over. Subsequently the petitioner terminated the said Loan-cum- Hypothecation Agreement and recalled the loan.
(3.) The opposite party no.1 filed Title Suit No.23 of 2010 before the Fast Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tamluk claiming the following reliefs: "a) a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the truck specifically described in the schedule below and the defendants have no right on the said truck; b) a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the peaceful plying the truck; c) a decree of accounting; d) a decree of all costs; e) a decree as your plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as per law and equity;";