TATA FINANCE LIMITED Vs. A T GEORGEKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ATTRIBUTING deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in O.P. No. 48/2004 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam on the ground that the opposite parties after termination of the hire purchase agreement entered into between the parties had not returned to the complainant identity card, sale deed, pass book, one salary slip and the duplicate key of the vehicle which was the subject matter of the hire purchase agreement. Complainant filed complaint for redressal of his grievance. He also alleged in that complaint the second opposite party and his subordinates mentally and physically harassed him.

(2.) THE reliefs claimed in the complaint were to direct the opposite parties to give duplicate key and other copies of documents to him and award compensation of Rs. 2,500 for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He also prayed for granting of such other reliefs that the Forum below deemed, fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(3.) REFUTING the allegation made against the opposite parties they filed a joint written version asserting that in view of the decision rendered by the National Commission in Tata Finance Ltd. v. Marjan Hossan and Others, the complainant is not satisfying the definition of consumer and being a hirer in the hire purchase agreement he was holding the vehicle as a bailee. It is contended on the basis of that decision that complainant had not hired the service of the opposite parties to fall within the purview of the consumer as defined in the Act. The further defence taken in the written version is that at the time of termination of the hire purchase agreement complainant insisted for a huge waiver of interest which they could not afford. The complainant threatened that he will use all his powers to harass them.