NAVODAYA FINANCE AND HIRE PURCHASE PVT LTD Vs. A P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONER HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the opposite parties in Consumer Dispute No.40 of 1999 on the file of the District Forum, Sanga Reddy, Medak District, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The third respondent made a complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the revision petitioners before the District Forum praying either to release the tractor seized by the opposite parties in good condition by directing the opposite parties to receive the amount due to him or to refund the amount of Rs.1,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 06-10-1997 till the date of realization with costs.

(3.) The following are the complaint averments in brief: The complainant is an agriculturist. He purchased a tractor on hire purchase basis from the first petitioner by depositing Rs.1,18,000/- and executing an hire purchase agreement. The Tractor was delivered to him on 11-09-1996. The complainant paid Rs.1,82,000/- along with the deposit of Rs.1,18,000/- from 10-09-1996 to 19-06-1997. As on July 1997 Rs.93,810/- was due to the petitioners with interest thereon. Subsequently, the complainant could not repay the loan instalments due to continuous drought and addressed the opposite parties for time for payment of the instalments. The opposite parties did not give any time for payment and seized the tractor on 04-09-1997 without any prior notice or opportunity. When he went to the office of the opposite parties for release of the tractor they served a notice on him demanding to pay the entire outstanding loan amount. Accordingly, on 06-10-1997 the third respondent went to the opposite party firm for payment of the amount due to him but the firm was kept closed and whereabouts of the partners was also not known. The third respondent came to know that on account of some criminal cases, the partners of the firm absconded from the respective places. Despite repeated requests, the opposite parties failed to release the tractor by collecting the amount due to them. Hence, the complaint for the reliefs as mentioned above.