SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the learned West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, 'the State Commission') in F.A. No.416/2009 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Chaman Lal by which while dismissing appeal order of District Forum passed in favour of the complainant-respondent was affirmed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent purchased a tractor from M/s. Kisan Motors for Rs.4,05,000/-. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as margin money and rest of the amount was financed by the petitioner-OP. Complainant paid Rs.20,000/- to OP towards instalment of the tractor. On 31.3.2008, some 5-6 persons representing themselves to be the officials of the petitioner misbehaved and manhandled the complainant and forcibly took away the tractor along with trolley as the complainant failed to pay EMI. Complainant submitted that he approached the OP and wanted to pay monthly EMI but of no avail, hence, filed complaint. OP admitted financing of tractor by OP-petitioner and submitted that 35 instalments of Rs.10,580/- per month were to be paid by the complainant. It was further alleged that complainant paid only Rs.1,25,000/- as margin money instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. Petitioner admitted receipt of Rs.20,000/- on 21.8.2007 from the complainant and further alleged that this amount was paid after 7 months. It was further submitted that possession of the tractor was not taken forcibly and also submitted that possession of tractor without trolley was taken on 3.1.2008 on surrender and intimation to this effect was given to hirer, guarantor and police authorities. In spite of several notices complainant failed to pay instalments and ultimately after obtaining report from the surveyor, tractor was sold in auction for Rs.1,75,000/-. It was further alleged that tractor was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose, hence, District Forum had no jurisdiction and complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer, hence, complaint may be dismissed. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/OP as under:

(3.) Petitioner preferred appeal against the order of the District Forum which was dismissed by impugned order.