Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
None is present for appellant as well as for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been pending in this Commission since 2004. No steps were taken by the appellant even to take circulation of this appeal. On finding that this is one of the unattended appeals lying in this Commission, this appeal was placed before us on 01/08/2011 for disposal. On that date, we had directed office to issue notices to both the parties. Accordingly on 16/08/2011 office had sent notices to both the parties which were made returnable today. Today also we are finding that none is present for the appellant as well as for the respondent. We therefore decide to dispose off the appeal on merits.
3. This appeal has been filed by org. complainant whose complaint No.137/2002 has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara by judgement and order dated 28/04/2004. Appellant who was complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, was resident of Satara decided to purchase Tata Sumo from Pandit Automotive, Satara. He needed vehicle loan. He approached the opponent/Tata Finance Co. Ltd. for the same. Loan was given by Tata Finance Co. Ltd. and ultimately, he purchased the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH-11-H-7495. Loan was taken under “Hire-Purchase Scheme” of the opponent. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant was supposed to pay monthly installment of `12,700/- for 35 months. According to the complainant after purchase of the vehicle, he had deposited five monthly installments and thereafter paid `4,000/- extra. He had paid tax and registration charges with R.T.O. of `40,000/-, but for some or other reason, he could not pay the monthly installments in time. Therefore, without giving any prior notice, official of Tata Finance Co. Ltd. seized the vehicle from possession of driver of the vehicle and took it away. Thereafter, he approached the Tata Finance Co. Ltd. He was told that an amount of `1,01,599/- was due and payable till that date. He was assured that he should deposit `20,000/-and take back the vehicle. Accordingly on 14/06/2001 he deposited a demand draft of `20,000/-, but despite payment of `20,000/-, vehicle was not given in his possession. Moreover, he learnt later on that said vehicle was sold by the opponent to Mr.Vitthal Raghunath Gaikwad, Pune by public auction for `2,98,000/-. He pleaded that he was required to pay 28 monthly installments by 17/10/2002. On 11/07/2001 he was in arrears of `1,01,599/- and he had paid `24,000/- and still he was not given possession of the vehicle and it was sold dishonestly to somebody else. Hence, he filed consumer complaint claiming amount of `4,22,000/- and also claiming `25,000/- as expenses towards litigation.
4. Opponent filed written version and contested the matter.
5. On considering the rival claims made in the pleadings and affidavits and documents, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was of the view that as per Hire Purchase Agreement, it was the duty of the complainant to pay monthly installment for repayment of loan promptly and punctually. But, he committed breach of agreement. Till 11/07/2001 the complainant was in arrears of `1,01,599/- and he had simply deposited `24,000/- as per his claim and since, he was in arrears of huge amount, as per terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement, opponent/Tata Finance Co. Ltd. had rightly seized the vehicle and sold it by public auction. In the circumstances, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found no substance in the complaint. Aggrieved by this dismissal, org. complainant has filed this appeal.
6. Upon perusal of the judgement in question and documents and affidavits placed on record, we are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is sustainable in law. No error was committed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The glaring circumstance appeared in this case was the default committed by the appellant in repayment of monthly installment. On 11/07/2001 he was in arrears of `1,01,599/- and as against that amount, he paid only `24,000/-. Had he paid whole the arrears of monthly installments by that day, the vehicle would not have been sold to some other person by way of public auction. But, he was a defaulter of huge amount and Tata Finance Co. Ltd. thought it fit to sell the vehicle by public auction to recover its dues and therefore, on the whole, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing the complaint is just and proper. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. We find no substance in the appeal preferred by org. complainant. Hence, 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 21st September 2011.
