PARAMAHAMSA FOUNDATION TRUST Vs. BHARTI MOBILE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review petition filed by the respondent - Shri Ramesh Chand praying for the review of the order dated 13th November, 2006 passed by this Commission in R.P. No. 1207 of 2004.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, according to the complainant are that the complainant-Ramesh Chand-OP No. 1 signed the hire purchase agreement on 21.5.1998 with M/s. RPG Itochu Finance Ltd., whereby a Maruti Van was financed for Rs. 1,60,000 . He made the payment of 29 instalments of Rs. 4,936 each to the opposite parties whereas the payment of two instalments amounting to Rs. 15,000 was made to Satish Kumar on 30.10.2000 and Satish Kumar asked for another Rs. 2,000 and agreed to give receipt after receiving the said amount. Despite this on 18.11.2000, the opposite parties illegally snatched the vehicle. The complainant had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge and the opposite parties agreed to produce the vehicle snatched, which on inspection was found to be worthless. Hence, it was not taken back by the complainant. Complainant prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay for Rs. 5 lakh as compensation as he could not use the vehicle after paying more than Rs. 1,43,144 (29 instalments) @ Rs. 4,936 and margin money of Rs. 35,597 total Rs. 2,10,106 being paid and claimed other charges of Rs. 31,365 with interest @ 18%.

(3.) The opposite parties in their reply had taken preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and there is no privity of contract with the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and the complainant is not a consumer as per C P Act and they had denied all the allegations made by the complainant.