AGNALL TRADERS LTD Vs. R K ANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal by M/s. Agnail Traders Ltd., second opposite party before the State Commission is directed against the order dated 21.7.93 of the State Commission, Delhi directing opposite parties namely City Bank, opposite party No. 1 and M/s. Agnail Traders Ltd. to pay the amount of Rs. 1,52,594/ - with interest at the rate of 17% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of payment besides costs.

(2.) SINCE Citibank had not filed any appeal, we will notice bare facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal. The complainant purchased a Maruti Delux Car from the Appellant on 4.9.89 by availing of loan from Citibank. The Appellant recovered Rs. 41,234/ - from the complainant and another sum of Rs. 99,000/ - was received by way of loan advice i.e. in all Rs. 1,40,234/ -. According to the complainant he paid a sum of Rs. 43,804/ - direct to the Appellant in addition to the amount of Rs. 1,01,876/ - given by the Citibank to them. The Appellants case is that the invoice price of the car on 4.8.89 was Rs. 1,35,865/ - besides Insurance Premium of Rs. 4,109/ - and Rs. 260/ - towards registration and other charges and that was the total amount recovered by them against delivery of the car on 4.9.89 to the complainant and thus there is neither any deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant nor there is any defect in the car supplied nor any defect is alleged in the complaint. Citibank had informed the complainant in the letter dated 19.8.89 that Citi bank had sanctioned the loan and disbursed a sum of Rs. 1,01,876/ - to the Appellant repayable by 36 equated monthly instalment of Rs. 3,696/ -. The Citibank received 36 postdated cheques from the complainant. As the complainant defaulted in the payment of instalments as some cheques were dishonoured, certain disputes arose between the Citibank and the complainant over the loan transaction and Citibank ultimately seized the car. The complainant filed a complaint questioning the accounts and adjustment of the loan transaction, unfair trade practice of the Citibank, harassment of the complainant by the Citibank with ulterior motives of extracting money and the illegal act of seizing the vehicle. The prayer made in the complaint is :

(3.) 8.89 as the receipt shows, was made to 'Agnail Holdings Pvt. Ltd.' a separate legal entity and not to the Appellant and it is not in payment towards the price of car but some other services. The conclusion is that no excess payment was made by the complainant to the appellant. The complainant is not a consumer qua the Appellant as no defects in the goods are alleged and there is no deficiency in service. 4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.7.93 in so far as it is against the Appellant is set aside and the compliant against the Appellant is dismissed. The Appellant is awarded costs of this appeal against the complainant assessed at Rs. 1,000/ -. Appeal allowed.