Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1347/2017

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajendar Rewar s/o Bodu Ram Rewar - Opp.Party(s)

Puneet Sharma

04 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1347 /2017

 

Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. Local Office 1^st floor, Heera Market, Near Bus Depot, Opp. Hotel Annapurna, Sikar Tehsil & Distt. Sikar & ors.

Vs.

Gajendra Rewad s/o Boduram Rewad r/o Tunwa via Nethwa Tehsil Lakshmangarh Distt. Sikar.

 

Date of Order 4.7.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Puneet Sharma counsel for the appellant

Mr. Vicky Agarwal counsel for respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Sikar dated 3.11.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that consumer complaint was not maintainable as the transaction was commercial one. The vehicle was sold on 28.10.2009 and the complaint is not filed within limitation period hence, barred by limitation and further more no deficiency has been committed by the appellant as the vehicle was sold on the basis as it was.

 

Per contra the request of the counsel for the respondent is that claim is rightly been allowed. No interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was purchased in auction and as per the registration certificate the

 

 

3

 

vehicle was light commercial vehicle hence, when the transaction was for commercial vehicle the claim was not maintainable before the Forum below and it should not have been entertained.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that vehicle was sold on 28.10.2009 and complaint is filed on 26.12.2011 hence, time barred but the contention of the respondent was that he purchased the vehicle in auction and only on 22.1.2010 he could know the fact that tax is due on the vehicle. Hence, cause of action has arisen first time on 22.1.2010 and claim is not time barred.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that the vehicle was sold under certain conditions and appellant are only financier hence, no responsible for tax liability could be fastened on him but to support this contention no documentary evidence is submitted before the Forum below and even Form no. 36 is not submitted before the Forum

 

 

 

4

 

below. Hence, this contention of the appellant is not acceptable.

 

In view of the above, that the transaction was commercial one the consumer complaint is not maintainable. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 3.11.2017 is set aside.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm