Per  Shri H. K. Bhaise – Hon’ble Member.

               The complainant filed this complaint before forum for redressal u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency of service and negligence in duty committed by the opposite party.  

              The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

1.            The complainant purchased tractor-troli on 14.06.2015 through finance from O. P. No. 1 & 2, one Tractor of Mahindra Company Registration No. MH-36/7013 and Troli No. MH-36/8626 from O. P. No. 3 for Rs.3,67,265/- and Rs.85,000/- respectively and taken delivery of said Tractor & Troli in house of complainant at Sangadi.  The cash payment of Troli Rs.85,000/- was made to O. P. No.3 at the time of delivery at the house of complainant, but the O. P. No. 3 has not given cash receipt being not available with him and promised to give cash receipt with registration book.         

2.            Thus no cash receipt of registration book is yet given by O. P. No. 3 to complainant.   

3.            The complainant paid total amount of Rs.2,40,370/- to O. P. No. 2 out of the cost of Tractor Rs.3,67,265/-.     

4.            The complainant further says that the O. P. No. 1 & 2 further demanded Rs.85,000/- with interest saying Troli is also financed from company with Tractor though it was paid to O. P. No. 3.  O. P. No. 3 intentionally  after receiving payment committed fraud and refused to return payment of Troli.  The O. P. No. 3 illegally seized the Tractor-Troli for non paying installments and sent it to O. P. No. 1 & 2.  

5.            The O. P. No. 1 & 2 sent illegal and fraudulent notice to complainant on 25.11.2008 which was replied by complainant.  Thus complainant is suffering loss of more than Rs.150/- per day.

6.            The complainant had filed complaint before District Consumer Forum, Bhandara on 18.04.2009 which was dismissed on 18.07.2009 for want of jurisdiction.  Complainant filed appeal in November 2012 after delay of 900 days against order dated 18.07.2009, but said appeal was dismissed in default on 03.12.2012.  Hence complainant filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court, Bombay Bench Nagpur which was allowed on 03.12.2012 and matter was remanded to State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench at Nagpur which was dismissed the delay condonation application on 12.08.2015 with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint before appropriate forum along with application for condonation of delay.  Hence the complainant filed present complaint along with application for condonation of delay.  This forum has allowed the application and condoned delay vide order dated 27.11.2015.

7.            The complainant prays for following relief:-   

     i)        To direct the O. P. No. 1 to 3 for return of tractor and troli to complainant by receiving of arrears money.

     ii)       To direct the O. P. No. 3 to pay amount upto value of troli of Rs.85,000/- to complainant with 12% interest from 14.06.2005.    

     iii)      To direct the O. P. No. 1 to 3 to pay compensation to the complainant for default in service, mental and physical agony along with  litigation charges. 

8.            The O. P. No. 1 to 3 were duly served notice with all documents and records for filing their reply.  But in spite of receiving notices all the O.P.’s did not attend before forum and hence ex-parte order was passed by the forum.   

9.            On listening the oral argument of complainant’s counsel, this forum has come to following decision.  

REASONING & FINDINGS

10.                    There is no doubt that the complainant is consumer.  There is no doubt about purchase of tractor and troli from O. P. No. 3 for Rs.3,67,265/- and Rs.85,000/- respectively.

11.                   The only dispute is of mode of payment Rs.85,000/- of troli which complainant says that he had paid in cash at his home and O. P. No. 3 had not issued receipt.  There is no evidence or proof that the complainant has paid the money to O. P. No. 3.  It is also unbelievable that the complainant has paid Rs.85,000/- in cash and did not pursue for receipt or registration book of troli for such a delayed period.

12.                   Regarding the loan for tractor the complainant said that he has paid Rs.2,40,370/- but he failed to produce the loan repayment schedule as agreed by both the parties at the time of granting loan for tractor.  From the complainant’s own statement it seems that the remaining price of tractor `1,26,895/- + interest thereupon  is yet to be paid by complainant.  The complainant has not produce any repayment schedule nor proved that how injustice has been done with him while seizing the tractor though he has committed default in repayment of  loan obtained from O. P. No. 1 & 2.   

13.                   Thus, from the fact and record produced by the complainant it seems that there is no deficiency in service merely because the tractor and troli hypothecated with O. P. No. 1 & 2 was seized for recovery of outstanding loan amount.  On the contrary the complainant is basically mischievous and non-cooperative in nature and has bad intention for not repaying the loan amount of O. P..                   

              For the above reasons forum is passing the following order.

-: FINAL ORDER :-

1.            The complaint stands dismissed.

2.            No order as to cost.

3.            Copies of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.

4.            The ‘B’ & ‘C’ set of the complaint be returned to the Complainant.