SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.C. Vyas, President and V.K. Patil, Member
RAMASHANKAR YADAV - Appellant
Versus
MAGMA FINANCE LIMITED AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 463 of 2011
Decided on : 19-12-2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Anurag Thaker, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Puri, Advocate, for the Respondent

Prima facie sale agreement executed by complainant determines dispute not maintainable before District Forum

Headnote:

Consumer Dispute - Repossession of Vehicle - Prima facie sale agreement executed by complainant - Dispute not maintainable before District Forum

Fact of the Case:

The complainant's truck was repossessed by the financier due to default in loan repayment. The vehicle was later sold to a third party, and the complainant alleged deficiency in service by the financier.

Finding of the Court:

The District Forum dismissed the complaint, stating that the dispute did not fall under 'consumer dispute' and advised the complainant to seek remedy in a civil court or other appropriate forum.

Issues: Dispute maintainability before District Forum

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the sale agreement executed by the complainant prima facie showed that the vehicle was sold to a third party, and any dispute regarding settlement of account did not fall under 'consumer dispute'.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, with the complainant being advised to file a civil suit or seek other appropriate proceedings.

ORDER

S.C. Vyas, President (Oral)- This is an appeal of the complainant, whose complaint Case No. 112/2010, has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), vide order dated 21.7.2011, on the ground that the dispute between the complainant and the OPs, was purely a civil dispute and the complaint is not maintainable before District Fora.

2. In nutshell, the complaint of the complainant/appellant before District Forum was that, a truck bearing No. CG.15-A-6059 was purchased by him, with the help of finance provided by respondent Nos. l and 2. An agreement was executed between the Financier and the complainant for repayment of the finance amount and as per agreement, Rs. 13,77,947 was the amount, which was to be repaid, but, on account of certain difficulties in the business and personal problems, the complainant could not repay the loan amount in time and EMIs were defaulted by him. Then, on 11.12.2008, the vehicle was repossessed by the Financier. Later on, the said vehicle was sold to respondent No. 3, Shri Ram Vijay Singh. An agreement was executed with the signature of the complainant. It has further been averred by the complainant that the Financier assured him that the amount received from respondent No. 3, Shri Ram Vijay Singh, and the amount received from the complainant, would be calculated by the Financier and if some amount is found as excess payment and become due to be paid to the complainant, then the same would be paid, but the Financier has not paid any such amount of over payment to the complainant and thus, committed deficiency in service, so, consumer complaint was filed before District Forum.

3. The complaint was resisted by the Financer, on the ground that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and he had not paid instalments in time and, ultimately, he himself has sold the truck in question, to respondent No. 3, Shri Ram Vijay Singh for an amount of Rs. 9,65,000 in the month of January, 2009 and its possession was also handed over by him to respondent No. 3. Remaining instalments were paid by the purchaser of the vehicle. Respondent No. 3, in separate reply has averred that against him no deficiency in service has been alleged by the complainant and no service was provided by him. The truck in question, was wilfully transferred by the complainant to respondent No. 3 and, then, as per agreement, remaining instalments to the Financier were paid by him. He has paid, in all, a sum of Rs. 8,38,202 and also spent a lot of amount on repairing of the truck. He submitted that as against him, no consumer dispute has been alleged.

4. The District Forum has agreed with the defence taken by the OPs/respondents and dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.

5. We have heard arguments advanced by all parties and perused record of the District Forum.

6. Photocopy of the Sale Agreement of the vehicle in question, Annexure D-2, is available in the record of the District Forum, which prima facie shows that this document was executed by the complainant/appellant himself in favour of respondent No. 3, Shri Ram Vijay Singh. It bears signature of the complainant/appellant and was executed in presence of Notary, who has verified it and also has put his seal impression on the document. It also bears signatures of the witnesses. Thus, from this document, prima facie it appears that vehicle in question, was sold by the complainant/appellant himself to respondent No. 3 and, thereafter, if there remains some disputes between the parties regarding settlement of account, then, such dispute does not come in the category of "consumer dispute" and the complainant/appellant was always free and is also still free to file civil suit or to seek other available remedy before other appropriate Forum, than the District Forum.

7. As complaint was not maintainable before District Forum, so, the same has rightly been dismissed by it. The order recorded by the D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top