SURENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. TELCO FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint No.264/2003 dismissing the complaint.

(2.) Facts not in dispute are that the complainant-appellant obtained one Tata Truck No. CG 06 8284 by obtaining finance from the O. P.-respondents under a hire purchase agreement. An amount of Rs.9,25,000 was obtained and an agreement executed. Instalments for repayment were due from 11.7.2001 to 11.5.2004. It is also claimed that in all Rs.5,70,000 have been repaid. It is further averred that the complainant-appellant was being harassed from time to time by the OP-respondents and this resulted in default and non-payment of some loan instalments. The truck was seized by the O. P.-respondents on 14.11.2002 only one day after paying Rs.2,00,000 to the OP-respondents. On further payment of Rs.10,251 it was released on 22.11.2002. Again the vehicle was seized after 5 days and released in the third week of December. Again the truck was seized on 9.4.2003 without any prior notice. It is alleged that the complainant-appellant has suffered huge loss due to the intimidation and frequent seizure of the vehicle despite making regular payments of instalments. It is prayed that the O. P.-respondents be restraiend from auctioning the said vehicle and directed to return it to the complainant-appellant.

(3.) O. P.-RESPONDENTS in reply have stated that the complainant-appellant was irregular in payment of the hire purchase instalments. He had repaid only 8 loan instalments as against 17 instalments. Therefore, the vehicle was seized as per the terms of the agreement. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint be filed. Questions for consideration befoure us are: 1. Whether the complainant-appellant is a consumer under the Act? 2. Whether the O. P.-respondents can be held liable for deficiency in service, for seizing the vehicle in question?