K A MURUGESAN Vs. JAURILAL BAFNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant s case is that the complainant had entered into an Hire Purchase Agreement with reference to his Lorry bearing Regn. No. T. No. 3258. The present value of the lorry is Rs. 2,50,000/ -. According to the terms of the hire purchase agreement, he has to pay @ 4,300/ - for the first 10 months and @ Rs. 4,100/ - for the next 10 months. On account of his sudden illness, the complainant went to the opposite party in person and informed his position and paid a sum of Rs. 4,300/ - on 23.12.1995 and Rs. 3,500/ - on 6.2.1996. He has also informed them about his health condition stating, therefore, he was not in a position to make regular payments of instalments. While so, the lorry was seized by the opposite party without notice to the complainant on 27.2.1996. The complainant with the sum of Rs. 13,000/ - went along with some respectable persons and after paying the amount, requested the opposite party to handover the lorry to him. At that time, the opposite party threatened the complainant and obtained his signatures in a stamp paper for the value of Rs. 10/ -. The opposite party has informed in their letter dated 25.3.1996 that unless the complainant pays the dues the lorry will be sold without notice to the complainant and the complainant was directed to make payment before 23.3.1996. The complainant issued a notice to the opposite party to handover the lorry to him and also to pay compensation for which they have not sent any reply. Hence, the complaint.

(2.) THE opposite party filed version stating as follows: The complainant is not a consumer and the dispute is not a consumer dispute. The rights of the parties are governed by the Hire Purchase Agreement. The allegation that the vehicle is worth about Rs. 2,50,000/ - is not true. The further allegation that the signatures were obtained in a blank stamp paper is also not true. The lorry was purchased on 23.9.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/ -. While so, to say that its value is Rs. 2,50,000/ - is ridiculous. On 23.9.1995 the complainant entered into an agreement with this opposite party for a sum of Rs. 84,000/ - which was payable in 10 monthly instalments of Rs. 4,300/ - and another 10 monthly instalments of Rs. 4,100/ - commencing from 23.10.1995. He also borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as a loan under the duly executed promissory note and he had repaid only a sum of Rs. 7,800/ - leaving the entire balance amount due to the opposite party under the Hire Purchase Agreement and the loan transaction. He has himself admitted that he was in arrears of instalments. Therefore, rightly the lorry was repossessed at considerable cost by the opposite party and was sold in auction and after giving credit for the amount already paid by the complainant. The total amount due to the opposite party including taxes, godown rent, and other amounts paid and expenses incurred comes to Rs. 1,18,401/ -. A telegram informing the seizure was also issued to the opposite party. The complainant promised to settle the due and paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - on 23.3.1996 and undertook to pay the balance within one month. Therefore, a notice was issued on 25.3.1996. When the complainant did not keep up his promises, despite several reminders, the lorry was sold for a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - on 29.11.1996. Even after giving credit, there is still a balance of Rs. 58,410/ -. The opposite party is taking separate steps before a competent Court. There is no deficiency in service. Hence, the opposite party prays the complaint be dismissed with cost.

(3.) THE lower Forum dismissed the complaint by its order dated 14.10.1998. Hence, the appeal by the complainant.