RPG ITOCHU FINANCE LTD. vs Ramesh Chand

-THIS appeal is directed against order dated 9.2.2004 passed by District Forum Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 461/2003 entitled Shri Ramesh Chand v. Shri Deepak Jain & Ors.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are, that the respondent had entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 21.5.1998 with the appellant for the finance of a Maruti Van. In terms of the said agreement the finance amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was advanced to the respondent by the appellant to be repaid in 38 instalments of Rs. 4,936/- each. The respondent handed over advance cheques for the same and the payment of 29 such instalments were encashed by the appellant whereas two instalments were paid in cash to Sh. Satish Kumar, representative of the O.P. on 30.10.2000 for which receipt was to be given after the payment of another Rs. 2,000/-. However, despite having paid the instalments due the appellant No. 1 forcefully took away the vehicle bearing No. DL-8C-2126 along with cash amount of Rs. 3,000/- for which a report was duly lodged with the police on the same date i.e., 18.11.2000. Therefore, the respondent filed a civil suit, which was later on dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. The respondent in its complaint filed before the District Forum prayed for directions to the O.Ps. to refund to total amount of Rs. 2,10,106/- paid by the respondent to the O.Ps., as well as Rs. 31,365/- paid as other miscellaneous charges, together with interest @ 18% p.a. The appellant had also prayed for award of well Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. The appellants in their reply/written version filed before the District Forum had taken several preliminary objections and on merits had denied the averments made by the respondent.

The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record as well as have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant at the admission stage. One of the contentions raised by the appellant is that the learned District Forum had failed to give finding as to whether the respondent was a consumer qua the appellants. Insofar as the said submission is concerned it is not denied by the appellant, that a Hire Purchase Agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent, regarding finance of a Maruti van and in pursuance of the said agreement an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was loaned to the respondent. As such the objection raised by the appellant is without basis.

THE second contention of the appellant is that the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable in view of the fact that the respondent had already filed a suit on the same cause of action before the Civil Court. THE said contention of the appellant is also without basis as it is an admitted fact that the above said suit was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the respondent to approach appropriate Forum. Another ground of appeal is that the learned District Forum had erred in holding that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 1,43,144/- i.e., 29 instalments along with margin money of Rs. 35,593/- to respondent No. 1 and had also wrongly concluded that the vehicle in question was unserviceable and as such the respondent No. 1 was liable to the award of Rs. 1,60,000/-. THE said contention of the appellant is also liable to be rejected on the ground that the learned District Forum has after referring to the evidence/material on record, given a detailed finding of fact, which has not been rebutted by the appellant in any way nor has the appellant been able to satisfy us to the contrary. Furthermore, even as per documents placed on record by the appellant itself especially the police report dated 18.11.2000 it is apparent that the vehicle in question was forcefully taken away from the respondent and not surrendered by the respondent voluntarily as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Thus the present appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. THE above mentioned appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.