IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 169-2010 DATED 06.07.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Eregowda,<br /> S/o Boomegowda,<br /> R/at Kaniyanahundi Village, Hampapura Hobli, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysooru District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. H.B.C. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Branch Manager,<br /> Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Limited, No.1056, Kavitha Vilas, M.G.Road, Mysooru-04.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.N.M., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 24.04.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 17.05.2010<br /> Date of order : 06.07.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 11 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, alleging deficiency in finance service on the part of the opposite party contending that, amount claimed and calculated is wrong and that illegally tractor has been seized. <br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party in the version has contended that, the complainant is chronic defaulter and in spite of service of demand notice, the amount due was not paid and that as regards model of the vehicle, there is typographical error.<br /> <br /> 3. Respective parties have filed their affidavits and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of both learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, point for our consideration is, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding is in negative, for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Certain facts such as availing of the finance by the complainant from the opposite party to purchase the tractor and hypothecation of the same etc., is admitted. <br /> <br /> 7. One of the main contentions of the complainant is that, even though model of the vehicle he has purchased is tractor 275 Di Bhoomiputra, the opposite party has calculated the amount for the tractor 575 Di. As could be seen from the records, horse power of the respective tractor noted above is different. Hence, according to the complainant, even though the tractor that he has purchased is 275, the amount charged and claimed by the opposite party in respect of 575. There is no dispute that, the tractor purchased by the complainant is 275. In the account extract on record, 575 is mentioned. Hence, the complainant contend that, the opposite party has charged and claimed the installment in respect of tractor 575 though in reality he has purchased tractor 275. In this regard, opposite party has contended that, it is typographical mistake and in fact, in respect of tractor 275 itself, installments have been charged and claimed. <br /> <br /> 8. From the documents at page 38, it is found that, finance amount is Rs.2,75,000/- and cost of the vehicle is Rs.3,72,595/- and the margin money initially paid Rs.97,595/-. From the document at page 51 of the records, it can be seen that, in respect of tractor 575, the price is mentioned at Rs.4,02,495/- in addition to VAT. But, in respect of tractor No.275 invoice value is shown at Rs.3,72,595/-. If these facts are taken into consideration, the contention of the opposite party that, through typographical mistake in the account statement, instead of 275, 575, is mentioned, has to be accepted. There is no contrary, cogent evidence for the complainant to substantiate the grievance put-forth.<br /> <br /> 9. As regards, seizer of the vehicle, even as could be seen from the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has not paid the entire amount. Hence, the contention of the opposite party that, the complainant is defaulter, is prima-facie established. For the opposite party, learned advocate relying on the ruling reported in II (290) CPJ 163 submitted that, the financier is authorized to re-possess the vehicle in case of defaulting payment of the installment. On the same point, one more ruling reported in II (23010) CPJ 45 is relied upon. In this ruling, Hon’ble National Commission has stated that, the rights of the parties by terms of the hire purchase agreement governed strictly and re-possess of vehicle even without issuing notice, has been considered. In the case on hand, opposite party has contended that, notices were issued to the complainant even telegrams were sent and in this regard, certain documents are produced. For the complainant, ruling reported in I (2007) CPJ 200 of the Hon’ble Delhi Commission is relied upon. Hon’ble Commission, with reference to the facts of that case have held that, hire purchase agreement being Civil contract, dispute arising from it has to be settled by way of civil remedy and not permitted to execute agreement in unlawful manner. Firstly, in the case on hand, alleged seizer of vehicle by unlawful manner is not proved and on the contrary as noted above, complainant is defaulter and secondly, after due notice, vehicle has been seized.<br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts and the material on record, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to prove alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, our finding on the above is in negative. <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 6th July 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />