MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCE Vs. SANJAY SHIVAJI PADGHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Nos. 1, 2 are original opponent Nos. 2 and 3 who have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.1.2008 passed by District Forum, Hingoli in C.C.No.69/07. Respondent No. 1 is the original complainant (herein after termed as "Complainant"), respondent No. 2 is the original opponent No. 1 who is dealer of tractor (hereinafter termed as "dealer") and respondent No. 3 is original opponent No. 4 which is insurance company (hereinafter termed as "Insurance Company").

(2.) THE facts of the case in a nutshell are that complainant is a farmer having agriculture land of 47R and resident of Hingoli District. He purchased Mahindra Sarpanch tractor from the dealer for which he paid Rs. 60,000 on his own and also obtained a loan from appellant financier and entered into an agreement on 20.11.2006. That, as per agreement rate of interest was of 12.85%. The loan was to be repaid in six monthly 10 instalments each of being Rs. 68,995. That, the tractor and trolley was given in the possession of complainant on 19.10.2006. That, complainant also paid Rs. 25,000 as premium of insurance policy obtained from Insurance Company covering the risk of said tractor and trolley for the period 28.12.2006 to 27.12.2007. That, first instalment was due to be paid during 20.4.2007 to 19.10.2007 out of which he paid Rs. 20,000 on 19.7.2007 and remaining amount of Rs. 67,000 was assured to be paid by him before 19.10.2007. Thathowever, appellant and dealer repossessed the tractor and trolley bearing registration No. MH38B -1281 and MH38C -662 respectively on 11.8.2007 forcefully with the help of gundas. Complainant approached appellant to deposit balance amount of first instalment of Rs. 67,000 and second instalment of Rs. 87,000 i.e. total amount of Rs. 1,54,000. However the same was not accepted and tractor and trolley were sold out which caused considerable financial loss to him. He therefore filed complaint before District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 1,52,000. In addition the complainant had also claimed total value of tractor and trolley from Insurance Company as per terms of the policy.

(3.) APPELLANT Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It was contended that to avoid liability of repayment of loan complainant had filed false complaint. It was further contended that as per loan agreement if any dispute arises about the loan it was to be referred to the Court within the jurisdiction of Mumbai city. Hence complaint is barredby jurisdiction. That, even District Forum below had no jurisdiction on the point of settlement of account. It was also contended that complainant himself admitted about business loss of Rs. 50,000 which goes to prove that tractor and trolly was purchased for commercial purpose hence he was not a " consumer". It was submitted that complainant failed to pay first six monthly instalment of Rs. 85,768 which was due on 20.5.2006. That, the notice was issued to the complainant demanding outstanding amount. That, the complainant though assured to pay the same on 10.8.2006 failed to comply his said assurance. It was averred that complainant himself on his own surrendered the tractor and trolly as he was unable to pay instalments. That, even after surrender of tractor and trolley, complainant was given sufficient opportunity to pay outstanding instalment of Rs. l,51,678butfailed to pay the same, hence said tractor and trolly was sold out on 30.10.2007 for Rs. 3,85,000 and yet there was outstanding amount of Rs. 2,53,667 against the complainant. It was therefore contended that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of appellant and that the complaint being false be dismissed.