RAJ AUTO FINANCERS Vs. ATMARAM SURSINGH JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 being aggrieved by impugned order dated 22.9.2011 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (short, "State Commission) has filed this revision petition.

(2.) Brief facts are that Respondent No.1/Complainant purchased Tractor No. MH-19-P-4985 for which he obtained a loan of Rs.3,60,000/-. Respondent No.1 paid down payment of Rs.1,60,000/-. Loan was to be repaid in 36 EMI of Rs.16,000/-. Respondent No.2 issued the bill of purchase on 25.7.2007 but delivery was given on 23.9.2007 i.e. after receipt of loan amount by the Bank. Due to late delivery, respondent No.1 could not use the tractor for earning his livelihood and therefore, he was to pay installment without earning anything from the tractor. On 26.11.2007, respondent No.1 had gone to Chalisgaon and there some unknown persons seized the vehicle. It is alleged that though he was not a defaulter, but his vehicle seized without prior notice. Immediately after seizure of the vehicle respondent No.1, approached petitioner and deposited Rs.32,000/- with it. Accordingly, petitioner wrote a letter to Respondent No.3/O.P.No.3 and asked it to return the tractor. Even, then tractor was not returned. Therefore, respondent No.1 approached the District Forum.

(3.) It is the defense of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.3 that, respondent No.1 was a defaulter and therefore, his vehicle was seized. After seizure of the vehicle, respondent No.1 deposited a sum of Rs.32,000/-. Immediately, thereafter, he requested for refund of the said amount as he was in urgent need of the money. Therefore, a sum of Rs.32,000/- was refunded back to respondent No.1 again. Accordingly, his vehicle was not released.. and hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.