Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 09.10.2015, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in R.P. No. 127/2015, SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. & Anr. vs. P.K. Infra and Power Company Pvt. Ltd., vide which, while dismissing the said petition, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in Miscellaneous Case No. 120/2015, passed in Consumer Complaint C.D. No. 290/2015, was upheld. The District Forum, vide the said order, had directed the petitioner not to take any coercive action against the moveable assets hypothecated with them till further orders.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant, P.K. Infra and Power Company Pvt. Ltd. filed the consumer complaint C.D. No. 290/2015 against the petitioners, M/s. SREI Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd., saying that the complainant had entered into six loan agreements with the petitioners/opposite parties (OPs) for different machines, assets and equipment on 09.04.2012, the details of which were provided in the consumer complaint. The agreement was to commence on 15.03.2012 and was supposed to end on 15.02.2015. The monthly instalment for each of the loan agreement and the repayment schedule were fixed in each case. Due to the closure of the mining activities in the area, because of some restrictions imposed by the Government, the complainant Company could not deposit the instalments on regular basis. They, therefore, approached the petitioners/OPs for re-scheduling the instalments. However, due to the failure of the petitioners/OPs for rescheduling the instalment to the satisfaction of the complainant, the consumer complaint in the case was filed, seeking directions to the petitioners/OPs for fixing easier instalments by waiving off the delay payment charges as well as the overdue interest/charges.

3. The District Forum, vide their order dated 18.08.2015, stated as follows:-

'Advocate for petitioner is present. Heard the petition filed by the Petitioner U/S- 13-3(B) of C.P. Act in shape of an affidavit. Issue notice to the OPs to show cause on the petition of the petitioner. OPs are hereby directed not to take any coercive action against all the movable assets hypothecated with the OPs Finance Company by the petitioner, until further order.'

4. Being aggrieved against the above order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners/OPs challenged the same by way of the revision petition, R.P. No. 127/2015 before the State Commission. However, the said revision petition having been dismissed by that Commission vide impugned order, the petitioners/OPs are before this Commission by way of filing the present Revision Petition. The notice of the Revision Petition was duly sent to the respondent/complainant, but it was received back with the remarks ‘refused’. The matter was, therefore, heard in the absence of the complainant/respondent and is being decided as under.

5. The order dated 18.08.2015, passed by the District Forum shows that notice had been ordered to be issued in the consumer complaint to the petitioners/OPs. The petitioners/OPs were also directed not to take any coercive action against the movable assets hypothecated with them by the complainant. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said interim order passed by the District Forum. In the impugned order passed in Revision Petition No. 127/2015, the State Commission also ordered that there was no error or lapse in the impugned order, which could justify any interference in the Revision Petition. Given the facts and circumstances of the case available on record before us, we do not find any justification to modify the concurrent findings given by both the consumer fora below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case, Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance C

o. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 that interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction should be carried out only, if there was a jurisdictional error or material defect in the order passed by the consumer fora below. We, therefore, do not find any justification to carry out any modification in the impugned order. This Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed and the District Forum is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.