Yoganand Naik vs Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.1.2013 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 19 of 2010 M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Yoganand Shankar Naik by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner is a self -employed, semi -literate person and was earning his livelihood by driving his old pick -up of 1994 model. OP/respondent invited offer for disposal of seized vehicle and complainant after some discussion offered to purchase the said vehicle and made payment of Rs.3,70,000/ -, took possession of the vehicle, towed it and got it repaired after incurring expenditure of Rs.80,000/ -. It was further alleged that documents of the vehicle; namely, Registration Certificate, Insurance policy, permit, etc., were not given inspite of repeated requests. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle was sold on "as is where is" condition and complainant purchased it after inspection at the yard. OP denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.3,50,000/ - with 12% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.50,000/ - as compensation, etc. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of deficiency in service regarding non -supply of necessary documents for plying the vehicle, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

LEARNED State Commission allowed appeal on two counts; firstly, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer as he purchased vehicle for business purpose; and secondly, complainant purchased vehicle "as is where is" basis and there was no deficiency on the part of OP.

COMPLAINANT in complaint mentioned that he was running old Pick Up of 1994 model for earning his livelihood. He purchased disputed vehicle from OP after making payment. He has nowhere mentioned in complaint that he purchased disputed vehicle for earning his livelihood. Learned State Commission rightly observed that complainant purchased disputed vehicle in addition to the vehicle held by him either for commercial purposes or for selling it after repairs and in such circumstances, rightly observed that complainant did not fall within purview of consumer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate his arguments that vehicle possessed by complainant at the time of purchase of disputed vehicle was sold by him and he was plying only disputed vehicle and in such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the findings of learned State Commission.

LEARNED State Commission in the light of terms and conditions of delivery letter dated 15.12.2005 rightly observed that vehicle was taken by complainant "as is where is" basis. As per terms and conditions of this letter all documents were to be procured by complainant and I do not find any assurance given by OP for rendering assistance to the complainant for obtaining documents from old owner of the vehicle from whom vehicle was re -possessed by OP before selling it to the complainant. Learned State Commission rightly observed as under: 11. Admittedly, the complainant was not given any documents at the time when the complainant obtained the possession of the vehicle in question and towed it away. Complainant was fully aware that the vehicle was seized from the said Madhusudan Dessai and therefore the documents would have been with him. The case of the complainant that the officials of O.P. had undertaken to hand over the same after completion of their documentation is nothing but self -serving vague statement without any corroboration and militates against the written document signed by the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle in question and therefore cannot be accepted. The complainant purchased the vehicle on "as is where is" basis. Once, with open eyes he purchased such a vehicle, he cannot be heard to say that the officials of the O.P. had promised to hand over the documents later. Complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the sale letter. There was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.