Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant had availed loan of Rs.2,83,000/- from opposite party no.1 with a condition to repay the same on instalment basis. He has alleged inter alia that the complainant became a defaulter by not paying the instalments in time for which opposite party no.1 seized the Tractor. The complainant approached the opposite party no.1 for release of the Tractor, but no step was taken by the opposite party no.1. Rather a notice was served on 17.3.2011 for auction sale of the seized Tractor on 23.5.211. After deposit of Rs. 80,000/- as per demand of opposite party no.1, Tractor was released in favour of the complainant, but the complainant did not receive the as the Tractor was not in a condition to ply. The complainant found that Tractor engine and many vital parts of the Tractor was completely replaced. So alleging deficiency in service complaint is filed.
4. The opposite party no.1 filed written version stating that the case is not maintainable being barred by limitation. Admittedly, the complainant was a defaulter. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 put the Tractor into auction after seizure and it was sold as per agreement.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and documents filed by him so also the submission made by the O.P., we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.P.No.1 to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant in that condition at the time of seizure within one month from the date of this order, in alternative the O.P.No.1 not claim any amount from the complainant rather pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) towards compensation and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only towards cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.Ps for realization of awarded amount. This case is disposed of accordingly.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tractor was seized, but the case was filed in 2014 and thereby the case is barred by limitation. Further, he submitted that as per the agreement, the Tractor was seized and sold because the complainant became a defaulter. Learned District Forum without taking all these contentions of the opposite party into consideration, allowed the complaint case illegally. Therefore, he submits to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submissions, perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the Tractor was financed by the opposite party with a condition to repay the same on instalment basis. It is admitted fact that complainant became a defaulter in some occasion and hence the Tractor was seized. The complainant again admitted that after deposit of Rs.80,000/-, the opposite party had allowed him to receive the Tractor, but he did not accept the same. When the vehicle has been seized and after the order of release, the complainant did not receive the Tractor, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Under such circumstances, we find that the learned District Forum has passed the order by not going through the merits of the case. Therefore we set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
