SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD Vs. S.NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties praying for the direction for the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,00,000/- which the complainant invested in the equipment along with interest at the rate of 12% and from the date of purchase and Rs.5,00,000/- towards the compensation for the loss incurred for taking of equipment and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and for costs.

(2.) The brief details of the complainant case as per the complaint is as follows :- The complainant who purchased a brand new Tata Hitachi Excavator equipment from the opposite parties for Rs.19,00,000/- by paying Rs.1,00,000/- as margin money to the 1st opposite party by obtaining finance from opposite parties 1 to 3 and on 12.3.04 again paid a margin money of Rs.2,00,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.66,665/- to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party obtained many signatures in blank papers 36 cheques and also received as securities on the immovable properties. The 1st opposite party does not give statement of accounts or repayment schedule or terms and conditions of loan to the complainant which are violation of law and deficiency of service. The complainant paid around Rs.10,00,000/- towards loan and on 16.6.05 also he paid Rs.66,665/- towards the due to the 1st opposite party. But within 3 days the equipment was taken away in an unlawful manner by Reliance recovery team. When the 1st opposite party was approached there was no proper response and evasive reply was given by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and they have no right to take the vehicle without Court directions in an unlawful manner and thereby the complainant has to be compensated for Rs.10,00,000/- for the loss and a legal notice was issued on 15.11.2005 for which the reply was sent on 19.11.05 without any statement of accounts and a rejoinder notice on 1.12.05 calling for damages was issued. The complainant entered an agreement regarding the equipment in Kerala and since the opposite parties took away the equipment there was a loss of Rs.10,00,000/- and still paying interest for the above said loss. Hence the complaint was filed signature for the reliefs as stated in supra.

(3.) The opposite parties filed their written versions by denying the allegations of the complainant further stated the issues involved are purely contractual nature under arbitration agreement dated 12.3.04 entered in to between the parties and the District Forum has no jurisdiction and the complainant is not a consumer and the right to seize the equipment derived from the agreement entered into between the parties and the complainant was habitual defaulter and the cheques issued by him for the discharge of the monthly liability were dishonored for want of funds. After forewarning the vehicle was taken by the opposite party. The complainant yet to pay a sum of Rs.18,17,336/-. The reply notice and statement of account were also sent to the complainant and thereby the complaint to be dismissed.