RAVINDRA BANDAPPA TUNDALWAR Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Ravindra Bandappa Tundalwar who was the original complainant before the District Forum, challenging the order dated 1.12.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur ('State Commission', for short) in Appeal No.80 of 1999. Respondents herein were opposite parties No.3, 1 & 2 respectively before the District Forum.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the petitioner being a farmer wanted to purchase a tractor for his use. For this purpose, he applied for a loan from respondent No.1 under a scheme floated by the Central Government for promotion of agricultural mechanization. Respondent No.1 indicated a price of Rs.3,02,368/- for the tractor in question based on which, the petitioner approached the Bank/respondent No.2 for sanctioning the loan of Rs.3,03,041/- . For this purpose, the petitioner made an initial payment of Rs.57,341/- and also deposited Rs.20,000/- in FDR with the respondent Bank. Thus, the petitioner paid a total amount of Rs.77,341/- to the respondent Bank towards the purchase of the tractor. Respondent Bank issued certificate sanctioning the loan to the petitioner and asked him to submit the loan certificate to respondent No.1 and take the tractor in his possession through respondent No.1. After delivery of the tractor, he was asked to get the RC book and register the documents in the name of the respondent Bank under the Hire Purchase Agreement after which the respondent Bank will make the payment of the price of the tractor to the seller through respondent No.1. Accordingly, the petitioner Bank went to respondent No.1 along with loan certificate but he was told that mere certificate of the respondent Bank which had been produced by him was not enough and he was asked to get a Demand Draft or a Cheque for the total price of the tractor before the possession thereof could be given to him. On a further contact made by the petitioner with the respondent Bank, the respondent Bank insisted that the certificate issued earlier was enough and that the demand draft or the cheque as required by respondent No.1 could not be given to the petitioner. In the circumstances, a dispute arose between respondent No.1 on the one hand and the Bank (respondent Nos. 2 & 3) on the other. It was the contention of the respondent No.1 that unless the cheque or demand draft of the full price of the tractor is received by it from the respondent Bank or the petitioner, it will not register the tractor in the name of the petitioner. Because of this, the petitioner could not get the tractor and suffered financial loss. It appears that the subsidy available from the Government under the scheme also could not be released in his favour. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) On being noticed, the respondents resisted the complaint and made their submissions before the District Forum. After hearing the parties and appraising the evidence placed before it, the District Forum vide its order dated 5.12.1998 accepted the complaint of the petitioner by directing respondent No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.74,209/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of depositing of the amount till the date of its return to the petitioner. It also directed respondent No.1/OP No.3 to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards expenditure, Rs.5,000/- for harassment suffered by him, Rs.1500/- for cost and Rs.30,000/- for the loss of subsidy within a period of 30 days.