Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member and K.B. Gawali, Member
SURESH MURLIDHAR PATIL - Appellant
Versus
SUGAN FINANCE COMPANY AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. A/37 of 2007
Decided on : 07-01-2013
Loan - Hire-Purchase Agreement - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(k), Section 2(1)(l), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(s), Section 2(1)(h), Section 2(1)(a), Section 2(1)(c), Section 2(1)(b), Section 2(1)(q), Section 2(1)(p) - The court discussed the hire-purchase agreement, repayment terms, default clauses, and the rights and obligations of the parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court found that the complainant failed to repay the amount as per the hire-purchase agreement, and the opposite parties had the right to repossess the vehicle as per the agreement. The court concluded that there was no deficiency in service provided by the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant obtained a loan through a hire-purchase agreement, failed to repay the amount as per the agreement, and had his vehicle repossessed by the opposite parties. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to repay the amount as per the hire-purchase agreement, and the opposite parties had the right to repossess the vehicle as per the agreement. It concluded that there was no deficiency in service provided by the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: Non-repayment of loan, repossession of vehicle, deficiency in service
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant's failure to repay the amount as per the hire-purchase agreement and the presence of a clause allowing repossession of the vehicle in case of default led to the court's decision to dismiss the complaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
ORDER
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member - This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2006 in C.C. No. 155/2005 passed by District Forum, Dhule, whereby the said complaint has been dismissed.
2. complainant's case in brief is as under:
Complainant had obtained loan of Rs. 2 lakh from both the opposite parties as sanctioned on 18.1.2002 by them. Hire-purchase agreement in between complainant and res-pondents was executed in respect of said loan transaction. The opposite parties had obtained signature of the complainant on blank papers in respect of said loan transaction. Complainant had also issued blank cheques signed by him and handed over the same to the opposite parties as per their insistence. Said loan was to be repaid within 2 years. Complainant paid total Rs. 1,96,700 to both the opposite parties. None of the cheque issued by him was bounced. However, both the opposite parties forcibly took away the vehicle of the complainant on 24.2.2004. Complainant therefore sustained loss of earning of Rs. 2,000 per day, complainant had gone to both the opposite parties with demand draft of Rs. 42,000 for payment. But they did not accept the same and refused to hand over the vehicle to him (complainant). Therefore complainant lodged report with the police. He had also filed civil suit in the Civil Court for recovery of the possession of the vehicle. However, due to technical defects he withdrew the suit with permission to file complaint before Consumer Forum. Complainant therefore prayed that both the opposite parties may be directed to return the seized vehicle and not to sell it by public auction and to pay him Rs. 2,000 as loss of per day i.e. total Rs. 3,36,000 for 18 months loss and also to pay him Rs. 40,000 towards mental harassment.
3. Both the opposite parties filed written version and denied that claim. They raised objection to the effect that complaint is not maintainable as all the partners of the opponents are not made parties to the complaint and that District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. They came with a case that they had granted finance of Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant on the basis of hire-purchase agreement in respect of complainant's truck No. MH-18M-734. Complainant had to repay said amount of Rs. 2 lakh with hire-purchase charges of Rs. 90,000 by instalment as per schedule of instalment within 30 months. First instalment was due on 17.2.2002 and last instalment was due on 17.7.2004. It was also agreed that if complainant fails to repay the amount as per schedule of repayment, said amount would carry interest @ 3% per month with penalty. Complainant only paid Rs. 1,58,900 out of the aforesaid amount, and hence Rs. 1,31,100 and penalty were due from the complainant. Complainant did not repay the amount. Therefore as per hire purchase agreement, opposite parties served notices from time-to-time to complainant. Despite of service of those notices repayment was not made on time. Therefore lastly on 24.2.2004 opposite parties served notice to the complainant and seized his aforesaid vehicle. Therefore opposite parties prayed that complaint may be dismissed.
4. District Forum below after having considered evidence brought on record and hearing of Advocates of both the parties, came to the conclusion that complainant is the consumer and that complaint is bad in law for non-joinder of all the partners of the opposite parties and that hire-purchase agreement is binding on both the parties and that Rs. 1,31,100 were due from the complainant as repayment was not made as per schedule. Therefore opposite parties had right to seize the vehicle. It also observed that prior notices were duly served to the complainant, but no payment was made as per those notices. It therefore held that there is no deficiency in service provided by opposite parties to the complainant and consequently it dismissed the complaint.
5. Feeling dissatisfied with the said order original complainant has preferred this
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
