SHAIK JANGU MIAYAN Vs. TATA MOTORS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.735/2009 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, a driver, for self employment purchased a Tata Vehicle from Jasper Industries for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,16,732/- and paid an initial sum of Rs.68,000/-. The opposite party financed a sum of Rs.6,08,000/- and made direct payment to the manufacturer and the remaining sale consideration of Rs.40,732/- was made by the complainant by cash to Jasper Industries. The complainant submits that he further paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards insurance, registration charges and other accessories. He signed the pre-printed agreement on 24-6-2006 and submits that there were several blank forms and he was explained that the loan is to be repaid in 45 instalments commencing from 24-6-2006 with interest sum of Rs.1,33,760/-. Opposite party also took post dated cheques and obtained surety of a guarantor and the complainant submits that he was informed that the EMI was Rs.17,250/- but if Rs.6,08,000/- is added to the interest sum of Rs.1,33,760/- and divided by 45 instalments, it will come to Rs.16,484/- and not Rs.17,250/-. During the period between 01-8-2006 to 18-7-2008, the complainant paid Rs.2,97,861/- in cash and paid Rs.1,39,626/- by cheques totalling to Rs.4,37,487/-. He submits that the opposite party has collected excess payment of Rs.23,487/-, as EMI was paid at Rs.17,250/- and Rs.41,873/- if EMI is taken at Rs.16,484/-. While so, on 16-8-2008 the said vehicle met with an accident and the complainant spent Rs.1,16,154/- towards repairs and the vehicle was not road worthy between 16-8-2008 to 27-10-2008. The complainant plied it for a week, but on 05-11-2008, opposite party forcefully took possession of the vehicle and the complainant lodged a police complaint against the illegal seizure. The complainant submits that the insurance company directly forwarded the claim amount of Rs.79,600/- to the opposite party in February, 2009 but still opposite party No.1 did not release the vehicle. Hence the complainant got issued a legal notice on 22-5-2009 but there was no response. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the said vehicle was sold away by opposite party without issuing any pre sale notice to him and instead the complainant received an arbitration notice on 25-8-2009 without any copies of the claim petition for the arbitration to be held at Mumbai on 19-9-2009. Hence the complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to refund an initial sum invested i.e.Rs.1,08,732/- together with insurance amount, new tyres affixed amount, repair charges, interest, compensation and costs.

(3.) Opposite party received notice but did not choose to appear before the District Forum and was set exparte.