1.       Revision Petition No.2808/2013 has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against the order dated 10.06.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh in First Appeal No.424/2012. Cross Revision Petition No.901/2018 has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant challenging the impugned order dated 10.06.2013.  

2.       Case of the Complainant is that on 26.10.2007 he purchased a tractor for a sum of Rs.4,59,446/-. He took loan of Rs.3,89,446/- from the Opposite Party. The Complainant repaid the amount in instalments and only a sum of Rs.18,877/- was due. The Complainant could not pay Rs.18,877/- as his mother was hospitalized. On 06.01.2010, employees of the Opposite Party- Mr. Surendra Chowdary, Mr. Kumar, Mr. Venkatamuni Naidu, Mr. P. Durga Prasad came to the house of the Complainant in his absence and forcefully took away the tractor. Brother-in-law of the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.18,877/- but the Opposite Parties demanded Rs.38,523/- claiming interest for delayed payment. The Opposite Parties also sold the tractor to a third Party. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with following prayer: -

“a)    Directing the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 to hand over the Tractor bearing Mahindra 4750 IOB PLT T.R.S. No. NCLT17563F7 purchased on 26.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.4,59,446/- to the Complainant;

b.)     Directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,500/- towards compensation i.e. from 06.01.2010 to 20.10.2011 when the Opposite Party No.1 and his subordinates came to his residence in the village and forcibly took away the tractor (the complainant sustained loss of Rs.15,000/- per month average.);

c)       Directing the Opposite Parties to pay future damages and mental agony at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month;

d)      directing the Opposite Parties to pay the costs of this Complaint; and

e)       Pass necessary order or orders as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3.       The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties by filing the written statement. The Opposite Parties took the preliminary objection that the Complaint was not maintainable as the Complainant had earlier filed CC/32/2010 on the same cause of action and the same was dismissed. The Opposite Parties specifically denied the allegation that they took away the vehicle forcibly. It was also stated that the Complainant was a defaulter, therefore, the Opposite Parties started recovering proceedings as per the Agreement. Thereafter, the Complainant cleared dues and NOC was issued in favour of the Complainant. After receiving NOC, the Complainant filed false case against the Opposite Parties.

4.       After hearing the Learned Counsel for the