JUDGMENT

Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member.—The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties No.2 & 3 against the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur, whereby the complaint filed under Section 12 of the CPA Act, 1986 by the complainant was allowed and the opposite parties No.2 & 3 were directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as difference of price i.e. market value of the vehicle and value for which the opposite parties sold the tractor of the complainant as well as compensation and mental agony, pain and harassment. They were further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Tractor Make Eicher 480 Simpson DC WDB, 42 HP bearing RC No.PB-22-K-7496 for a total consideration of Rs.5,50,800/- on 01.06.2016 from opposite party No.1 and the same was got financed from opposite parties No. 2 & 3. The complainant sold old tractor HMT-5911 for Rs.95,000/- to opposite party No.1 and has paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- in cash to the opposite parties. The loan amount was to be paid in 48 equal monthly installments. The complainant paid the instalments to the opposite parties regularly and made payments of loan amount of Rs.3,17,400/- in total 23 installments but due to financial problem, the complainant could not pay the instalment of June 2018. On 16.07.2018, the complainant went to the office of Opposite party No.2 to deposit two instalments of Rs.27,600/- for the months of June and July, 2018 but the opposite party refused to accept and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.91,620/-. On 21.07.2018, in the absence of the complainant, the musclemen took the tractor in question, forcibly from the house of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to return back the tractor number of times but opposite party No.1 put off the issue on one pretext or the other. Finally on 02.08.2018, the complainant approached the opposite parties No.2 & 3 and requested them to return the tractor or refund the paid amount of Rs.4,72,400/- but the opposite parties flatly refused. This act and conduct of the opposite parties is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission and sought the following reliefs:

(i) to return the tractor or to refund the amount of Rs.4,72,400/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from dated 21.07.2018;

(ii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of loss of agriculture work;

(iii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony; and

(iv) to pay Rs.11,000/- as costs.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their replies to the complaint. The opposite party No.1 in its reply stated that the complainant purchased a tractor from opposite party No.1 after obtaining the loan from Magma Finance Company. Further submitted that Chhinder Singh complainant and one Resham Singh approached opposite party No.1 and told that some instalments could not be paid and due to that reason, Magma Finance Company took the tractor, in question. Therefore, the opposite party No.1 requested the Magma Finance Company to return the tractor, in question, who told that the complainant is to deposit the instalments of loan, which he has not paid. It was submitted that opposite party No.1 has no role with regard to payment of loan instalments or return of the tractor, in question and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against opposite party No.1.

4. Whereas opposite parties No.2 and 3 filed their reply jointly and took the preliminary objections that as per the terms and conditions of the Hypothecation Agreement the District Commission does not have the territorial jurisdi