Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he was intending to purchase truck tanker for milk business. He approached the opponents for loan. The opponents sanctioned loan amounting to Rs.8 Lakhs on 26th March, 2008. The complainant purchased truck chasis model registration No.CV/LPT1613/MH17T2490 for Rs.8,55,461/-. The complainant paid Rs.76,180/- to the opponents at the time of purchase of truck. The complainant received truck on 31st March, 2008 and requested the opponents for additional loan to install cabin body and milk tank on the truck but the opponents refused. The complainant spent Rs.87,000/- for cabin body and Rs.2.5 Lakhs for milk tank. The complainant spent Rs.4,33,180/- for improvement of the truck. The truck tanker was fit for use from 31st May, 2008. The complainant paid three loan installments regularly amounting total Rs.84,000/-. On 1st March, 2009, the persons of the opponents took away the truck tanker forcibly on the ground that the loan installments are not paid. The truck tanker was taken away without any order or legal notice. The opponents sold out the truck tanker on 20th June, 2009 for Rs.5,60,000/- without any notice to the complainant. In fact, the price of the truck tanker was Rs.11,92,461/-. As the truck tanker was sold, the complainant lost his income. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.3,57,000/- which was spent by him on cabin body and milk tank. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- as he suffered loss in his income.
2) The opponents appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the opponents is a Non Banking Finance Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The complainant is not a ‘consumer’ therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The truck was purchased for commercial purpose therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. As per the agreement executed between the parties, the matter should be referred to the Arbitrator. The complainant failed to repay the installments of loan amount. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service. The complainant agreed to repay the loan amount by 34 monthly installments. It is denied that the complainant spent the amount for improvement of truck or purchase of milk tank. The vehicle was voluntarily surrendered by the complainant as he failed to repay the loan amount. The complainant committed breach of agreement. As per the agreement, the opponents are entitled to take possession of the vehicle. Due intimation was given to the complainant before taking possession of the vehicle and sell of it. Intimation was given to the police station also and inventory list was prepared. Amount Rs.2,65,272.69/- is still outstanding against the complainant and the opponents are entitled to recover it. The complainant has filed this false complaint with malafide intention to create hindrances in the recovery proceeding. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
3) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
2) | Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed ? | No |
3) | What Order? | As per final order |
REASONS
4) As to Point No. 1 & 2 :- It is not disputed that complainant took loan from the opponents and had executed loan cum hypothecation cum guarantee agreement. As per this agreement, the complainant agreed to repay the loan amount by monthly installments. In the complaint itself, the complainant has submitted that the truck was ready for use from 31st May, 2008 and he repaid three loan installments only. The truck was taken away by the opponents in March-2009 i.e. after eight months. Within this period, the complainant paid only three installments. As per the agreement, the complainant was supposed to pay monthly installments regularly. The complainant has not given any reason for failure to pay monthly installments regularly. In the agreement itself, the complainant authorized the opponents to take possession of the truck on failure to pay the loan installments. No reason is given by the complainant for his failure therefore the opponents are entitled to take possession of the truck and recover the amount.
5) According to the complainant, he spent Rs.4,33,180/- for improvement of the truck and purchase of milk tank. The truck was hypothecated to the opponents. It is not explained by the complainant whether he had taken permission of the opponents while improving the truck. The complainant has produced the copies of payment receipt but he has not filed affidavit of those persons who had received the amount. The opponents have denied the expenditure on improvement of the truck. The truck was taken away in the month of May-2009 and sold in June-2009. There was three month time to pay the loan installments. It appears that the complainant had not made any efforts to repay the loan installments. The first notice was issued by the complainant in November-2010 i.e. after one year five month. Moreover, this Forum can not decide the recovery of other amount as it does not come under the deficiency in service. It is only for the civil court to decide it. Thus, there is no deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint stands dismissed.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 23rd December, 2013
