Arvind Mishra vs DHARAMSAI

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directed against the order dated 23.11.2006, in Complaint No. 99/2006 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja-Ambikapur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), directing the appellant to pay to the complainant/respondent No. 1 Rs 25,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. payable from 2.12.2004, besides cost of the complaint Rs. 1,000.

INDISPUTABLY, the appellant is a dealer of Indo Farm tractor, manufactured by respondent No. 2. It is also not in dispute that the appellant supplied an Indo Farm tractor and for which complainant/respondent No. 1 paid the appellant, a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant dealer. The averments in the complaint were that the appellant dealer had undertaken to get price of the tractor, financed from the Bank and had obtained documents from the complainant in that regard. An amount of Rs. 25,000 was paid by the complainant/respondent No. 1 to the financier as advance. However, the appellant/dealer failed to get financed the amount from the Bank as promised. It was further averred that the appellant had taken away the tractor forcibly from the complainant on 6.7.2005. The complainant prayed that the amount of Rs. 25,000 be directed to be refunded to him, with interest and cost, etc.

The complaint was resisted by the appellant dealer. It was averred that the complainant himself was to get finance of the price of the tractor. It was also averred that the appellant had seen the documents of the complainant, so as to satisfy that the complainant was entitled to get the finance from the Bank. However, the complainant failed to get the amount of finance and did not make payment of balance of price. It was further averred that the complainant used the tractor for 7 months and had driven the same for 370 hours which was indicated by the meter of the tractor. However, since, the complainant failed to make payment of balance of price, the tractor was repossessed by the appellant dealer. It was also averred that the complainant was liable to pay to the appellant, rent of Rs. 300 per day for the use of the tractor.

THE complaint was also resisted by respondent No. 2. The District Forum by the impugned order directed that the appellant dealer shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 25,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. and shall also pay cost of the complaint to the complainant.

HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. Record perused. Indisputably, the complainant/respondent No. 1 had taken the tractor from the appellant dealer and had only paid Rs. 25,000. It also appears that balance of the price was payable on obtaining finance from the Bank. The averments of the appellant dealer and the complainant are contrary to each other as to who was liable to take steps for obtaining finance from the Bank. Though, the complainant states that the appellant dealer was liable to procure finance from the Bank, while the appellant dealer''s allegations are that the complainant was required to take finance. No written agreement or document in that regard is on record. However, it is clear that the complainant having purchased the tractor, was liable to make payment and to obtain finance in that regard. He however has failed to do so. Further, it appears that the complainant had shown the documents of his agricultural land, etc. to the appellant dealer as would appear from the averments in the written version of the appellant. It also appears that the appellant dealer must have felt satisfied with the complainant''s documents that the complainant would be entitled to get finance. However, for reasons not disclosed on record, the finance could not be so obtained by the complainant. It is clear that the appellant dealer should not have supplied the tractor without getting the payment of price or an agreement regarding payment thereof. This has resulted in the consequences following due to appellant''s disability to make payment of price. However, it is also true that the complainant has not succeeded in obtaining finance. Appellant dealer had taken possession of the tractor after 7 months. In the circumstances, it appears that the appellant without taking adequate steps for sale of the tractor after obtaining the price thereof handed it over to the complainant and later repossessed it. This has also caused inconvenience to the complainant. In the circumstances, it appears just and proper to direct that the appellant shall refund to the complainant Rs. 10,000.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified and instead, it is directed : The appellant shall refund to the complainant Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand), payable within 2 months, failing which the appellant shall also pay interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant from the date of default. Parties shall bear their own costs of this litigation. Appeal partly allowed.