TATA FINANCE LIMITED Vs. SADHAN KUMAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, the State Commission ) in SC Case No. FA/456/2011 The Chairman, Tata Motors & Ors. Vs. Sadhan Kumar Ghosh by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased vehicle WB-41B/9623 from Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in December, 2005 and made down payment of Rs.59,259/- and for rest of the amount he obtained loan from OP/petitioner under Hire Purchase Agreement dated 4.2.2006. Loan amount of Rs.9,90,000/- was payable in 46 monthly commencing from 2.4.2006 to 2.1.2010 and 1st monthly installment was of Rs.26,850/- and 2nd to 46 was of Rs.26,590/-. It was further submitted that in April, 2007, due to illness, complainant could not make payment of installments and inspite of request OP re-possessed vehicle by using muscle power and assaulting the complainant s driver. Complainant approached OP No. 3 to release truck on taking part payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, as he was not in a position to pay entire outstanding amount as complainant repaid entire loan amount to OP in respect of another truck WB-41-B-9056. It was further submitted that OP verbally agreed to release truck subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in May, 2009 and complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- on 28.4.2009 and Rs.53,200/- on 28.5.2009 with OP; even then, OP refused to release the truck and on inquiry OP apprised that vehicle has been sold in auction. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable before District forum and further submitted that complainant was defaulter in making payment of installments which compelled OP to repossess vehicle after observing all the formalities and as payment was not made, vehicle was sold and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.9.94,059/-. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.