Date : 14.12.2012

Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2008 passed by Dist.Forum Beed in C.C.NO.204/07, whereby the said complaint is dismissed.  Complainant Rajkumar who is appellant  herein had taken loan of Rs.1,72,000/- from opponent No.2 for purchasing the vehicle from opponent No.1 Tata Motors Ltd.  Complainant had agreed to repay that loan in 35 monthly instalment of Rs.6500/- each.  He had also tendered 20 signed cheque for repayment of that loan to opponent No.2.  It is the case of complainant/appellant  that he repaid that loan by payment of instalment regularly. Complainant in complaint stated in detail regarding recovery of excess amount of Rs.1,40,377/- by opponent No.2 from him.  Therefore complainant had prayed that opponent may be directed to refund him the amount mentioned in the said complaint with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- towards mental harassment and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of complaint.

2.       Opponent No.1 & 2 filed written versions and denied the claim. They denied that complainant paid instalments regularly as per agreement. They submitted that complaint is basically related to accounts and hence complaint is not maintainable. They also submitted that amount of Rs.1,06,690/- was due on 9.10.2007 from the complainant and out of the same 18% waiver was given which was Rs.4097/- and remaining amount of Rs.1,02,595/- was to be paid by complainant. He paid only Rs.99824/- i.e. Rs.2707/- less.  Other amounts towards collection of cheques and insurance amount are also due from the complainant. They also submitted that accounts are regularly maintained, which shows that still some amount is due from the complainant.  He therefore submitted that complaint may be dismissed.

3.       District Forum below after considering material brought on record and hearing advocates of both sides came to the conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable as it is relating to accounts. It also relied upon the observations made by Hon`ble National Commission in the cases of “Ram Deshlahara –Vs- Magma Leasing Ltd.” reported in III(2006) CPJ 247(NC)  & “Ashok Leyland Finance Limited –Vs- Himanshu S.Thumar” reported in II(2005) CPJ 491. The ratio laid down is that when dispute pertains to accounts between the parties, said dispute cannot be said to be consumer dispute and hence complaint cannot be entertained by the District Forum. 

4.       It is submitted by Adv.Shri.R.S.Gangakhedkar for the appellant that from the documents produced on record it is proved that the appellant challenged the excess amount and it was clearly within the jurisdiction of District Forum to decide the complaint on merit and give decision thereon in favour of complainant. Thus according to him impugned judgment and order is not legal, correct and proper it needs to be set aside and complaint may be allowed.

5.       On the other hand, Adv.Shri.Vikas Tanwade supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that appeal may be dismissed.

6.       On careful perusal of the complaint, it is found that complainant has challenged the correctness of the accounts maintained by opponent No.2 in respect of loan transaction in dispute. The account statement which is challenged is also produced by the complainant.  Original opponents contended that as the complaint relates to accounts it is not maintainable before District Forum.  District Forum below in the impugned judgment has rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon`ble National Commission.  It is well settled preposition of law that the dispute which pertains to account cannot be said to be consumer dispute. In the instant case, the dispute pertains to the accounts in between both the parties. Hence it is a civil dispute. District Forum has rightly held that complaint is not maintainable before it.  We agree with the said conclusion arrived at by District Forum on the basis of material placed on record. We thus find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by District Forum.  Hence we proceed to pass the following order.

                                                 O   R    D    E     R

1.                 Appeal is dismissed. 

2.                 Both the parties shall bear their own cost.

3.                 Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Pronounced on 14.12.2012.