BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.248 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.506 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between:
K.Ganga Reddy S/o Linganna
Aged about 40 yrs, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Muthyampet Village, Metpally Mandal
District Karimnagar – A.P.
1. M/s Telco Construction Equipment Co.Ltd.,
Office at 1-10-72/10, Begumpet,
Main Road, Hyderabad
2. M/s Tata Finance Limited
Khairatabad, Hyderabad
3. Tata Motors Limited
C/o M/s Tata Finance Limited
Khairatabad, Hyderabad
4. M/s Rama Excavator NTPC Jyothinagar
Ramagundam, Karimnagar District
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
1. `8,26,127/- towards the cost of Proclainer and for payment of`7,75,000/- towards damages for keeping the vehicle idle and for payment of`4,800/- towards transportation charges of the proclaimer as also a sum of`2,30,873/- towards punitive damages.
2. `12,82,000/- and he paid the margin money of 25% to the extent of`4,28,027/-. The loan amount was repayable @`52,350/- in 29 monthly installments with first installment amount being a sum of`53,500/-. The appellant paid the installments till 10.02.2005 to an extent of`3,98,127/- through the cheques deposited with the second respondent company.
3. `5000/- per day. The second respondent collected an amount of`9,850/- on 13.06.2005 towards the loan installments and a sum of`30,529/- on 21.05.2004 towards insurance premium, from the appellant. The proclaim suffered from inherent defects due to which the machine was kept idle and the second respondent repossessed the machine on 10.07.2005 at Hyderabad.
4.
5. `9,00,000/- on 30.01.2006 without issuing notice to the appellant for and informed the appellant that after adjusting the sale proceeds of the vehicle the appellant was still due an amount of`3,84,259/-. The second respondent sold the vehicle for unreasonable amount.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. `3,98,127/- and the District Forum ignored the margin money paid by the appellant.
11.
12. `12,82,000/- and he paid the margin money of 25% to the extent of`4,28,027/-. The loan amount was repayable @`52,350/- in 29 monthly installments. The appellant had taken delivery of the proclain on 5.05.2004 and paid 7 installments till 15.01.2005, totally amounting to`3,98,127/-.
13.
“I submit that right from the very beginning the vehicle was givein trou ble and not working properly.
14.
“That after two months of taking delivery of J.D. 315 P Machine started giving trouble and it was not running and machine was kept idle in the shed more than 120 days immediately for the repairs due to failure of new product, according to the warranty certificate, the warranty started from its delivery dated 5th
15.
“Our client confirms us that they received legal notice dated 23rd
16.
17. `9,00,000/- without conducting auction. The sale consideration of the Proclain is unreasonable and the District Forum has rightly concluded that the third respondent with which the second respondent was amalgamated had sold the proclain without issuing notice to the appellant and without conducting auction.
18. `9,00,000/-. In the circumstances, the amount awarded by the District Forum does not appear to correspond to the loss suffered by the appellant.
19.
20.
21.
22. `3,67,600/- does not correspond to the loss suffered by the appellant and the actual sale consideration of the proclain.to`4,00,000/-.
23. `4,00,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment and`10,000/- towards compensation together with`3,000/- towards costs .
MEMBER
KMK*
