Per Mrs.S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
This appeal has been filed by the org. complainant against the dismissal order dated 29/06/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.19/2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sindhudurg. Being aggrieved by the said order, complainant herself has filed present appeal.
It was the case of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum that she had purchased Mini-truck of Eicher Company bearing No.MH-07 by obtaining loan from Opponent/Shriram Transport Finance Company. According to the complainant she was paying regular installments to the opponent. On 08/04/2009 and 16/04/2010 complainant had paid `15,000/- and `10,000/- respectively to the opponent. According to the complainant only `42,319/- was balance amount due and payable to the opponent. However, opponent issued a notice to the complainant on 12/10/2009 and asked the complainant to pay `1,42,913/- within 7 days. The complainant replied to the said notice and requested the opponent that only `42,319/- is due and payable and not `1,42,913/-. However, opponent on 09/10/2009 seized the vehicle of the complainant and sold the vehicle of the complainant in auction to the third party. Therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum for deficiency in service.
Opponent filed its written version and contested the claim of the complainant. Opponent pleaded that the complainant has transportation business and said vehicle is used by the complainant for her business purpose. Therefore, complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Opponent further pleaded that complainant has never paid her installments on time and from the beginning she is defaulter in the payment for installments. Opponent further pleaded that the complainant was not paying installment amount to the opponent and therefore, on 14/01/2009 and 31/07/2009 the opponent sent a notice to the complainant and demanded the money and also informed her that in default, vehicle of the complainant would be seized by the opponent, but the complainant failed and neglected to act upon the said notice of the opponent. Therefore, as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed between the complainant and opponent, opponent on 12/10/2009 seized the vehicle of the complainant and sold the said vehicle in auction and therefore, opponent finally pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and hence, complaint should be dismissed.
After considering the affidavits and documents placed before it, the Learned District Consumer Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Hence, complainant herself filed this appeal.
We heard Mr.Milind Parab, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Mangesh Patel, Advocate for the respondent.
We perused the memo of appeal, impugned order and documents placed on record and we are finding that the dismissal order passed by the District Consumer Forum is perfectly correct and sustainable in law. The appellant herein purchased the vehicle after obtaining loan from the respondent/Shriram Transport Finance Company. The appellant had obtained loan of `3,75,000/- for interest @ 14.5% p.a. We perused the statement of accounts and we are finding that the appellant has paid only `42,850/- to the respondent. Respondent has produced all payment receipts before the District Consumer Forum. Appellant has not paid the installment amount to the respondent on time and therefore, on 31/07/2009 respondent had sent notice to the appellant regarding default in payment and informed her that in case appellant failed to pay the said amount to the respondent, respondent would seize the vehicle. However, respondent once again gave an opportunity to the complainant/appellant herein and sent another notice on 12/10/2009 for payment of arrears of the amount, but appellant did not bother to pay the installment amount to the respondent. Therefore, respondents as per the terms and conditions of the agreement seized the vehicle and sold it in the auction. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Respondent acted as per the terms and condition No.5 of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement and appellant had failed to fulfill the contractual obligations as agreed in the said agreement. District Consumer Forum has rightly given its finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and rightly dismissed the complaint. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/org. complainant. In the result, we pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 14th March 2011.
