Back
1 (A/06/583)
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
APPEAL NO.A/06/583
(Arisen out of order dated 16/02/2006 passed in Consumer Complaint No.CC/152/2003 by
South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Parel, Mumbai)
Telco Ltd. (Tata Motors Limited)
World Trade Centre, 27th Floor, ……Appellant
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005.
(Org.Opposite Party No.1)
Versus
1. Vilas Gangaram Shegle,
Post.Mandduli, Kudal,
……Respondent No.1
Sindhudurga
(Org. Complainant)
2. Bafna Motors (Ratnagiri) (P) Ltd.,
Ratnagiri MIDC,
…… Respondent No.2
Ratnagiri.
(Org.Opposite Party No.2)
BEFORE:
Justice S.P. Tavade, President
S.T.Barne, Judicial Member
For Appellant : Advocate Smt.Anita Marate
For Respondent No.1 : Shri.Vilas Shegale present in person
For Respondent No.2 : Advocate S.G. Mahamuni
ORDER
Per Hon’ble Justice S.P. Tavade, President
1) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned
South District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Parel, Mumbai in
Consumer Complaint No.CC/152/2003 dtd.16/02/2006, the original opponent
no.1 has preferred this appeal. Parties to this appeal shall be called and referred
as per their status in original complaint.
2) It is the case of the complainant that on 08/12/1999, he paid Rs.1,62,770/-
to opponent no.1 and purchased truck bearing No.MH-07-643. Opponent no.1 is
manufacturer and opponent no.2 is authorized dealer of opponent no.1. The total
price of the truck was Rs.6,77,665/-. Opponent no.1 financed the balance
amount of the truck. Accordingly, agreement was executed between the
complainant and opponent no.1.
2 (A/06/583)
3) It was contended that the complainant took delivery of 407 truck and
asked the bodybuilder to fix the body of truck. Accordingly, the bodybuilder has
completed the work and handed over the truck to the complainant. It was
contended that the opponent no.2 had charged additional amount of Rs.12,105/-
towards the Hydraulic-kit. It was contended that the complainant was liable to
pay 34 monthly installments of the loan. It was contended that the complainant
paid total amount of Rs.4,97,921/- to the opponent no.1 under Hire Purchase
Agreement. It was contended that the opponent had given warranty for period
of 18 months. It was contended that there was many defects in the truck namely
radiator was not working properly, similarly there was fault in brake system, the
truck was sent for repair on several occasions. It was contended that the
opponent no.2 did not carry out repairs for more than 4/5 months in-spite of
letters issued by the complainant dtd.28/08/2000 and 14/09/2000. It was
contended that due to non working of the truck the complainant could not repay
the loan amount in time. It was contended that though the defects were revealed
during the warranty period the opponents did not repair the truck properly.
4) It was contended that on 13/12/2002, complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to
opponent towards payment of installment of loan. It was contended that on
15/12/2002, complainant had taken the truck to Village Kasardi and parked in
front of Konkan Transport Company. It was contended that the officers of the
opponent no.1 came there and seized the truck illegally and forcibly without
prior notice to the complainant. The complainant lodged the complaint with
Kankavali Police Station, but no steps were taken by the police. It was
contended that act of seizure of truck was nothing but unfair trade practice
played by the opponents. It was contended that due to seizure of truck,
complainant was deprived of his livelihood. It was contended that R
