Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta Presiding Member and Rekha Gupta
Suresh Baban Gadekar —Petitioner
versus
ICICI Bank and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 436 of 2011
(From the order dated 14.07.2010 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad in Appeal no. 653 of 2006)
Decided on 16.04.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Preetam Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondents no. 1 to 3:Mr. Love Kumar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint will not be maintainable in respect to vehicle which is being used for commercial purpose.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d)—Complaint—Maintainability— Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal—Tractor has been purchased for commercial purpose—Complainant will not fall under definition of ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986—As vehicle is used for commercial purpose complaint is not maintainable—District Forum did not consider this primary issue while deciding complaint. (Para 21)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Revision—Delay—Delay of 59 days in filing of revision petition—Application for condonation of delay gives no dates, name of counsel or detailed reasons to account for delay—There is no sufficient cause to condone delay of 59 days in filing present revision petition—Revision petition being time barred by limitation dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000. (Paras 6, 11 to 14)
Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision petition no. 436 of 2010 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Circuit Bench, Aurangabad) (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 653 of 2006.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are as under:
3. Petitioner/complainant deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent no. 4/opposite party no. 4 for purchasing tractor of Eicher Co. on 28.04.2003 and took a loan from respondent no. 3/ OP no. 3 of Rs.2,40,000/- @ 9% per annum interest was decided on such loan. The petitioner purchased tractor MH 16 F 4388 and Registered at R T O.
4. Respondent no. 3 gave a table of statement about how to repay the loan to petitioner and the petitioner as per it repay it. The petitioner has deposited Rs.73,240/- for repayment of loan to respondent no. 3 out of it Rs.69,240/- were deposited from time to time. The petitioner has given Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent no. 4 and one instalments @ Rs.4000/- respondent no. 3 for depositing it into bank. But respondents no. 3 or 4 are not giving its receipt to him.
5. Details of repayment to the Bank by the petitioner:
Rs. Receipt no. Date
4,000/- 997863 27.03.2003
11,240/- 574675 24.07.2003
5,000/- 1305212 12.11.2003
15,000/- 1216039 28.11.2003
10,000/- 1540873 28.01.2004
9,000/- 997858 12.02.2004
5,000/- 9997862 12.03.2004
10,000/- 1894037 05.06.2004
69,240/-
5. Even then on 23.06.2004, respondent no. 3 apprehended the petitioner and drove away the tractor. After that on 10.03.2005, the respondent wrote a letter informing they sold away the tractor. But on inquiring it to RTO by the petitioner he has been informed that till date such tractor has not been transferred and it has been sold only for Rs.1,60,000/-.
6. Due to seizure of tractor the petitioner has sustained a loss of Rs.1,80,000/-, because he was giving it on rent for cultivating land and he was earning Rs.1,30,000/- per month and the petitioner could not get Rs.1,30,000/- from it from the date of seizure. Respondent no. 3 seized and disposed of tractor even though the petitioner is able to pay. Respondent no. 3 has not taken any written permission for sale.
7. The respondents no. 1 to 3 on the other hand, in their written statement have averred that “the Hon’ble Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint as relation between complainant and opponent are debtor and creditor and the complainant has obtained commercial loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from ICICI Bank Ltd., for purchase of Tractor Eicher 485 Vehicle bearing registration no. MH 16 F 4388. On terms and conditions agreed between the complainant and opponents as per hypothecation agreement bearing no. LFADR no. 00001205843. It is further submitted that the complainant has not obtained the said loan under any scheme of the Government for Educated unemployed person but obtained the said loan for commercial purpose as per scheme of opponent. The complainant has agreed to pay 36 EMI/ instalments, i.e. first 5 instalments of Rs.4,000/- each and the sixth instalments of Rs.31,530/- and so on up to 36 instalments starting from 1st June 2003 to May 2006 as per loan agreement. The complainant has executed hypothecation agreement and other loan documents in favour of the opponent but the complainant has failed to pay EMI regularly as agreed by him. The complainant has defaulted in making payment of the instalments whenever the same fell due. On this count also the complaint of the complainant are liable to be dismissed.
8. The respondents sold the said vehicle to a bonafide purchaser. It is further, submitted by these opponents that the petitioner admitted in his complaint that “His Financial Condition is Good”, but the petitioner on his own accord failed to repay EMI/instalments of the said vehicle as agreed by him. The petitioner has failed to pay EMI/ instalment from April 2004 on his own accord these fact shows that th
