BEFORE THE HON’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI APPEAL NO.A/00/1154 (Arisen out of order dated 29/05/2000 passed in Consumer Complaint No.69 of 1999 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nashik)

1. Pallonji Leasing Pvt. Ltd.

A Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and having its registered office at 87, Abdul Rehman Street, Bombay 400 003 and Corporate office at 46/A Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bombay 400 001.

2. M/s. Sterling Motors A Partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act having its Corporate Office at C/o.46/A Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Bombay 400 001 and the main authorised dealership Office at Old Agra Road, Nasik 422 001. …….Appellants Versus

1. Shreesheel Engineers Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act through its Director Shri.Nagendra Shankar Rao Nadkarni having its office at C-43, MIDC, Ambad, Nasik 422 010.

2. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., A Limited having its office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Bombay 400 001. ……Respondents BEFORE:

Justice S.P. Tavade, President A.Z. Khwaja, Judicial Member For Appellant : Advocate Ms. Diksha Shetty For Respondent No.1 : None present.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P. Tavade, President

1) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nashik in Consumer Complaint No.CC/69/99, dtd.29/05/2000, the original opponent nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal. The parties of this appeal shall be called and referred as per their status in the original complaint. The facts rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under -

2) The complainant is Private Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. In the year 1996, the complainant was in need of vehicle for the movement of its directors. Hence, complainant approached opponent no.2 for purchase of Tata Sumo vehicle manufactured by opponent no.3. The opponent no.2 informed the complainant that opponent no.1 had scheme for financing vehicles purchase through opponent no.2. Accordingly, opponent no.1 gave information regarding scheme for finance for the vehicle. The complainant requested opponent no.1 to finance the complainant for purchase of Tata Sumo vehicle.

3) The opponent no.2 issued an Invoice dtd.22/07/1996 in favour of opponent no.1 for a vehicle Tata Sumo having chassis No.385003 GT 0925012, Engine No.483 DL 41 GT 0779917 for Rs.3,61,843/-. The said vehicle was delivered to the complainants under Higher Purchase Scheme and their names are shown accordingly in the invoice. Opponent no.2 issued certificate dtd.19/08/1996 to complainant stated therein that vehicle was delivered to the complainant. In the Certificate of Sale dtd.19/08/1996, the opponent no.2 gave details of the said vehicle and mentioning therein that the said vehicle was sold to complainant under the Higher Purchase Agreement with opponent no.1. For purchasing the said vehicle the opponent no.2 under finance from opponent no.1 under Higher Purchase Scheme. The complainant had executed number of documents in favour of opponent no.1, the complainant had called upon the opponent no.1 for having the copies of the said documents executed by complainant in favour of opponent no.1 but till filing of the complaint the opponent no.1 did not furnish the documents.

4) It was contended that opponent no.1 illegally charged the amount of insurance premium for three years in advance and have not passed the benefit of an interest on the said advance amount of insurance premium. No claim benefit to complainant was given by the insurance company.

5) The complainant was repeatedly following the matter with regard to the supply of copies of documents executed by him in favour of opponent no.1 and for refund or adjustment of insurance premium taken in advance by opponent no.1 from the complainant and for supplying copies of financial statement to the complain