RAMASHANKAR YADAV Vs. MAGMA FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal of the complainant, whose complaint Case No. 112/2010, has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), vide order dated 21.7.2011, on the ground that the dispute between the complainant and the OPs, was purely a civil dispute and the complaint is not maintainable before District Fora.

(2.) IN nutshell, the complaint of the complainant/appellant before District Forum was that, a truck bearing No. CG.15 -A -6059 was purchased by him, with the help of finance provided by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. An agreement was executed between the Financier and the complainant for repayment of the finance amount and as per agreement, Rs.13,77,947 was the amount, which was to be repaid, but, on account of certain difficulties in the business and personal problems, the complainant could not repay the loan amount in time and EMIs were defaulted by him. Then, on 11.12.2008, the vehicle was repossessed by the Financier. Later on, the said vehicle was sold to respondent No. 3, Shri Ram Vijay Singh. An agreement was executed with the signature of the complainant. It has further been averred by the complainant that the Financier assured him that the amount received from respondent No. 3, Shri Ram Vijay Singh, and the amount received from the complainant, would be calculated by the Financier and if some amount is found as excess payment and become due to be paid to the complainant, then the same would be paid, but the Financier has not paid any such amount of over payment to the complainant and thus, committed deficiency in service, so, consumer complaint was filed before District Forum.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the Financer, on the ground that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and he had not paid instalments in time and, ultimately, he himself has sold the truck in question, to respondent No.3, Shri Ram Vijay Singh for an amount of Rs.9,65,000 in the month of January, 2009 and its possession was also handed over by him to respondent No. 3. Remaining instalments were paid by the purchaser of the vehicle. Respondent No. 3, in separate reply has averred that against him no deficiency in service has been alleged by the complainant and no service was provided by him. The truck in question, was wilfully transferred by the complainant to respondent No. 3 and, then, as per agreement, remaining instalments to the Financier were paid by him. He has paid, in all, a sum of Rs. 8,38,202 and also spent a lot of amount on repairing of the truck. He submitted that as against him, no consumer dispute has been alleged.