A.P. Sahi, President

Heard Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Gupta, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the interim order passed by the District Commission dated 06.04.2022, whereby the vehicle hypothecated to the petitioner has been directed to be released during the pendency of the complaint (CC/238/2021). Further challenge is raised to the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow dated 02.08.2022 passed in revision petition no. 21 of 2022, whereby the interim order passed by the District Commission has been confirmed with a modification that the vehicle shall be released in the name of the wife of the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the final relief has been granted at the interim stage without deciding the complaint after exchange of affidavits, merely in the absence of the documents pertaining to the resale of the vehicle. It is urged that same could not have been made a ground for passing of an interim order for release of the vehicle which amounts to granting of final relief, even though there is a direction to realize the balance of the installments till the date of repossession of the vehicle.

4. It is submitted that the order is erroneous and the District Commission in an adhoc manner has released the vehicle and passed the orders which could have been done only after evidence was led and the parties were allowed to contest the matter finally.

5. A revision petition was filed before the State Commission and it was observed that the order of the District Commission is correct, with a modification that the vehicle shall be released in favour of the wife of the complainant.

6. It is urged that it is not understood as to why the vehicle was directed to be released to the wife of the complainant without there being any finding as to who was the owner of the vehicle or as to in whose name the vehicle had been registered.

7. From a perusal of the order of the District Commission it is not clear as to who is described as the real owner or the registered owner of the vehicle, but the allegation is that both the husband and wife had purchased the vehicle for their livelihood. From a perusal of the complaint it is evident that the complaint was file on the basis of a Power of Attorney executed by the wife who had taken the loan from the petitioner.

8. It is also evident from the facts narrated that a loan of Rs.29,84,019/-was disbursed for the purchase of Truck bearing registration no. UP 70 GT 1313. As against the said loan admittedly the complainant had repaid only Rs. 1,00,100/-. According to the complainant while the vehicle was plying in the state of Orissa, it was repossessed forcibly by the petitioner without any notice.

9. A 10 paragraph complaint was filed before the DCDRC, Prayagraj and the petitioners put in appearance and informed the Commission that the Truck had been resold after repossession for a sum of Rs. 14,04,226/-. It was also informed that that the total outstanding amount against the complainant up to May, 2021 was Rs.31,98,729/-. Thus, the vehicle had been sold to realize the balance of the amount which is still deficit.

10. The District Commission on the interim application had called upon the Finance Company to produce the documents relating to the sale of the vehicle, but since it was not submitted, the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 was passed presuming that the vehicle had not been sold and a direction was issued to handover the custody of the vehicle to the complainant on payment of the balance of the installments that was due up to the date of repossession.

11. The passing of the interim order may be questionable and was therefore assailed in a revision petition before the State Commission, but the State Commission also proceeded to confirm the order with a direction to release the vehicle to the wife of the complainant.

12. As noted above the complaint had been filed by the husband, who is the power of attorney holder without making his wife the complainant. The wife was therefore nowhere a party to the proceedings but the State Commission passed the order for the release of the vehicle to the wife of the complainant.

13. Having considered the submissions raised and having perused the documents on record we find that the revision petition was filed with a delay of 28 days. The said delay has been sufficiently explained, but the question is would this revision petition be maintainable against the impugned orders.

14. We have already considered this aspect in the decision of this Commission in the case of M/s. Gary Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, (now known as 'Omaxe Gary Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) vs. Nitin Saxena, NC/DN/2/2025, decided on 16.05.2025, holding that the second revision against a revisional order passed by the State Commission would not be maintainable before the National Commission, keeping in view the statutory provisions as also the law discussed in detail in the said order. Relying upon the same we find that since these proceedings arise out of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, then in view of the law referred to hereinabove, the present revision petition would not be maintainable.

15. It may be pointed out that the order of the District Commission was also appealable, but for reasons best known a revision was filed before the State Commission. The petitioner chose to file a revision petition instead of an appeal. Had there been an appellate order passed by the State Commission, the same would have been further appealable before the National Commission as a second appeal under Section 51 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It has been clarified in detail in another decision of this Commission in the case of HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jvoti & Ors. NC/DN/33/2025 decided on 16.05.2025, that where there is a provision of appeal, a revision would not be maintainable.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the execution proceedings are being pressed hard and that orders should be passed to protect the interest of the petitioner.

17. Even, if it is presumed that the nature of the relief granted by the District Commission as confirmed by the State Commission could not have been granted at the interim stage, yet in view of what has been stated above, the remedy of a revision against the order passed by the State Commission in a revision petition before this Commission would not be available.

18. As noted above, since the present revision petition is not maintainable, it would not be appropriate to pass any orders, but we may observe that possibly the remedy for the petitioner lies in approaching the jurisdictional High Court keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 620 and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand Jain & Ann 2023 SCC OnLine SC 877.

19. In the given circumstances, the present revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of grievances and for any appropriate order in accordance with law.