AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B .C. Gupta, Member These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 14.02.2013, passed by the Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in appeals No. FA/12/569, ''''Rajnandgaon Motor Engineering Works& ors. versus Chova Ram Sahu '''' and FA/12/571, ''''L&T Finance Limited versus Chova Ram Sahu, '''' vide which, while dismissing both the appeals, order dated 26.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, allowing the consumer complaint no. 112/2011, filed by the complainant/respondent no. 1 was upheld. This single order shall dispose of both these revision petitions and a copy of the same will be placed on each file.
BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent who is an agriculturist, for the purpose of purchasing a tractor, contacted OP No. 2, Rajnandgaon Motor Engineering Works, Dhamta, which is a branch of OP No. 1, Rajnandgaon Motor Engineering Works, Rajnandgaon. The value of the tractor Tafe Massey Ferguson 7250 was stated to be Rs.5,63,000/ -. The tractor was delivered to the complainant by OP No. 2 after he paid a total sum of Rs. 3,13,000/ - in three instalments of Rs. 10,000/ -, Rs.40,000/ - and Rs.2,63,000/ -. He was assured by OP No. 2 to get finance for the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/ - from OP No. 3, L&T Finance Limited. The complainant was also told by OP No. 2 that the amount deposited by him had been further deposited with OP No. 3 as down payment/margin money and the receipt will be given by OP No. 3 only. The sale letter and other documents would also be received through OP No. 3. On 14.01.2010, he was called by OP No. 2 and his signatures were obtained on the finance documents. At that time, the representative of OP No. 3 gave him documents for margin money of Rs.3,00,800/ - and Rs.2,50,000/ -. As per these documents, the amount of Rs.2,50,000/ - was to be paid in 86 monthly instalments and the first instalment was to be paid on 12.07.2010, but it was assured by OP No. 3 that the instalments will be collected by a representative of their company from the house of the complainant. On 17.09.2010, a representative of the OP came to collect the first instalment, although the instalment was due on 12.07.2010. At that time, a sum of Rs.30,000/ - was available with the complainant which was received by the representative of OP No. 3 and a receipt was issued. The said representative told him that the balance amount of Rs.14,000/ - could be paid with the next instalment, due on 12.01.2011. It has been alleged that before the second instalment became due on 12.01.2011, some 4 to 5 people from OP No. 3, forcibly took away the tractor in the absence of the complainant on 05.01.2011, i.e., one week before the due date. The complainant contacted OP No. 2, and he found the tractor standing on their premises. The OP No.2 told him to deposit Rs.2,50,000/ - and take away the tractor. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.02.2011, demanding the vehicle back. However, the same was never returned to him, rather a notice was sent by OP No. 3 dated 11.02.2011, demanding a sum of Rs.51,216/ - as due on 09.02.2011. On telephonic enquiries with the OP No. , a sum of Rs.90,000/ - was demanded from him. The complainant has also stated that he was made to provide 11 signed blank cheques no. 4341 - 4351 to OP No. 3 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Main Road, Saja, although only 8 instalments were to be paid. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, requesting for return of his tractor alongwith the necessary documents, or in the alternative, to refund a sum of Rs.3,30,000/ - with interest @12% p.a. and damages of Rs.500/ - per day with effect from 5.01.2011 and Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.10,000/ - as litigation expenses. 3. In their reply before the District Forum to the complaint, OP No. 3, L & T Finance Limited denied the allegations levelled in the complaint and stated that the complainant was being requested for payment of instalment since 12.07.2010 itself, which was the due date for the said payment. However, the first instalment was only partly paid on 17.09.2010, when a sum of Rs.30,000/ - was given to representative of the company. It has also been stated that the complainant had failed to follow the terms and conditions of the agreement. OP No. 3 also denied the receipt of 11 blank cheques by them. They also denied the allegations that the vehicle was repossessed by their representatives.
IN their reply to the complaint, filed before the District Forum, the OP No. 1 & 2, admitted that the tractor was sold to the complainant for Rs.5,63,380/ - and the complainant paid cash amounts of Rs.10,000/ -, Rs.35,000/ - and Rs.2,34,610/ - but the balance amount of Rs.2,83,770/ - was to be taken from the complainant. They also stated that they had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/ - with OP No. 3, on the request of the complainant.
THE District Forum vide their order dated 13.09.2012, decided the complaint in favour of the complainants and stated that the OPs shall pay an amount of Rs.3,43,000/ - jointly and severally, alongwith an interest @7% p.a. to the complainant from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 26.03.2011 till realisation, and also pay an amount of Rs.1000/ - for mental harassment and another Rs.1,000/ - as cost of litigation. The District Forum stated that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3,13,000/ - to the OPs and also a sum of Rs.30,000/ - as part payment of first instalment to OP No. 3 and hence, he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,43,000/ -. Two appeals were filed against this order before the State Commission, one by the dealer Rajnandgaon Motor Engineering Works and another by L&T Finance Limited and these were decided vide impugned order. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed both the appeals. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for petitioner/OP No. 3 in revision petition no. 1029/2013 vehemently argued that they had never repossessed the said vehicle, and that the vehicle was not with them. The complainant was required to repay instalments of loan sanctioned by them for the purchase of tractor and the first instalment of Rs.44,000/ - was due on 12.07.2010. However, the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.30,000/ - and that also on 17.09.2010. The petitioner / OP No. 3 had filed an arbitration case against the complainant, which was decided in favour of the petitioner. It was, therefore, wrong to say that the petitioner/OP No. 3 was liable to make payment of the awarded sum to the complainant, jointly and severally alongwith OP No. 1 & 2. The learned counsel stated that the factum of raising loan of Rs.2.5 lakh by the complainant and its repayments in 8 instalments, out of which the first instalment was due on 12.07.2010, had been admitted by the complainant in the complaint itself. In the legal notice sent by the petitioner/OP No. 3 to the complainant on 11.2.2011, similar facts had been stated and it was mentioned that on 09.02.2011, a sum of Rs.51,216/ - was due against the complainant under the agreement between the complainant and petitioner/OP -3. Referring to OP 1 & 2, learned counsel stated that they were the dealers of the tractor, but the job of petitioner/OP 3 was to provide finance only.
THE learned counsel for petitioner/OP 1 and 2 in RP No. 2129/2013 argued that the complainant had not levelled any allegation against them regarding the repossession of the vehicle. The vehicle was not at all with petitioner/OP No. 1 & 2. Referring to the arbitration proceedings, the learned counsel stated that OP 1 & 2 had not been made party in the said proceedings.
ON behalf of respondent no. 1, written submissions have been placed on record, giving the factual position about the purchase of tractor and payment of money as alleged in the complaint, it has been stated that the purchase price of the tractor was Rs.5,63,000/ - including registration and insurance fees. The complainant had been asked by OP 2 to pay a sum of Rs.3,13,000/ - and he was assured that the balance amount shall be raised from OP 3. The tractor was delivered on payment of a sum of Rs.3,13,000/ - in 3 instalments of Rs.10,000/ -, Rs.40,000/ - and Rs.2,63,000/ - to OP 1 & 2. The complainant was called to the office of OP 2 and the signatures of the complainant and his father were obtained on certain papers. A document was also handed over to them, saying that the margin money was stated to be Rs.3,00,880/ - and loan amount was Rs.2.5 lakh, payable in eight equal instalments of Rs.44,000/ - at six months '' intervals. The balance amount of Rs.12,120/ - related to the insurance fee and registration fees. Eleven blank signed cheques had been taken by OP 3 from the complainant, although only 8 instalments were to be paid. The complainant mentioned that although the vehicle was delivered to him and money paid, but no document such as the sale letter, registration certificate, warranty papers, insurance policy, loan sanction letter were handed over to him. He had also been told by the OPs that the instalments of loan shall be personally collected from him by a representative of OP 3. The complainant has stated that a representative of OP 3 came to collect the first instalment of Rs.44,000/ - on 17.09.2010, although due date for the same was 12.07.2010. At that time, the complainant had a sum of Rs.30,000/ - in hand. The representative of OP 3 was asked to come after 2 -3 days, but he asked him to pay only Rs.30,000/ - and stated that the rest of the money shall be collected on 12.01.2011, when the second instalment shall become due. However, one week before the due date of the second instalment, i.e., on 05.01.2011, the representatives of OP -3 took away the vehicle in the absence of the complainant and the male members of his family. The complainant rushed to OP -2 and found the tractor parked there. He was told by OP -2 to take the tractor back, after repaying the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/ -. Thereafter, he received a notice dated 11.2.11 from OP -3, demanding a sum of Rs.51,216/ - as due on 11. The complainant sent notice to OP -3 demanding the release of the vehicle or refund of Rs.3,43,000/ - alongwith damages and cost. On the failure of the OPs to accede to his demand, the consumer complaint in question was filed, which was allowed by the District Forum as stated above. The order of the District Forum was then confirmed by the State Commission in the appeal filed before them. The complainant/respondent -1 has further stated in his arguments that OP -1 & OP -2 had categorically admitted in their reply and affidavit that OP -3 had repossessed the vehicle. The complainant has alleged that there was nexus between the OPs and hence the complainant was facing undue harassment at their hands. The orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum should, therefore, be upheld and the present revision petition should be dismissed. 9. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It is admitted by the parties to the litigation that the tractor was purchased by the complainant Chova Ram Sahu from OP -1 & 2 M/s. Rajnandgaon Motors Engineering Works, for a sum of Rs.5,63,000/ -. It is also admitted that a loan of Rs.2.5 lakh was raised from OP -3, L&T Finance Limited. A sum of Rs.30,000/ - was collected as part payment of first instalment of loan on 17.09.2010 by the representative of OP -3. As per the complainant, he was assured that the balance amount of the first as well as the second instalment shall be collected on the next due date, i.e., 12.01.2011. However, just one week before the due date of next instalment, the vehicle was repossessed. It is interesting to observe that the OPs are shifting the blame for repossession of the vehicle on each other. In the reply to the revision petition filed by L&T Finance Limited on 08.10.2003. It has been categorically stated that the vehicle had been repossessed by the other OPs, i.e., M/s. Rajnandgaon Motor Engineering Works. On the other hand, OP -1 & 2 have taken the stand that the vehicle was not repossessed by them. The complainant, however, says that he found the vehicle parked at the premises of OP 1 & 2 and that he was asked to take the vehicle back after making a payment of Rs.2.5 lakh. The State Commission have also observed that during the course of arguments before them, OP1&2 took the stand that the tractor was repossessed by OP -3, whereas OP -3 stated that the tractor was repossessed by OP 1&2. The State Commission have also observed that in the terms and conditions of the loan offer letter, including the repayment schedule, it had nowhere been stated that the financer was authorised to repossess the vehicle. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum, relying on this argument that the OPs had no authority to repossess the vehicle. A similar view has already been taken by the National Commission in First Appeal No. 64/2007, ''''Magma Leasing Ltd. V/s Prasan Mohapatra '''' decided on 31.05.2011, saying that the repossession of the vehicle without any justification and without any notice amounted to an act of arbitrariness and deficiency in service. It may be stated that OP 1 & 2 have also admitted, having taken a sum of Rs.2.8 lakh from the complainant, although his stand is that a sum of Rs.3.13 lakh was paid to them.
IT is very clear from the above factual position on record that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant after raising a loan of Rs.2.5 lakh from the financer and after making the necessary payment to the dealers of the vehicle. The amount of first instalment was also partly paid to the representative of the financer. Just a few days before the second instalment became due, the vehicle was taken away from him. Evidently, there was no authorisation to the OPs to repossess the vehicle, as per the terms and conditions governing grant of loan to him. Moreover, the version of the complainant is fully supported from the legal notice sent by OP 3 financer to him, in which it has been stated that a sum of Rs.51,216/ - was due against him as on 09.02.2011. It is evident, therefore, that this is a case of deficiency in service and harassment of the consumer at the hands of the OPs. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the well -reasoned orders passed by the District Forum or the State Commission, by which they have ordered the release of the amount of Rs.3,43,000/ - paid by the complainant back to him alongwith an interest @7% p.a. and a meagre sum of Rs.1000/ - each as compensation against mental harassment and litigation cost. The present revision petitions are, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.