SWARAJ SHARMA TRACTOR AUTHORIZED SELLER, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD Vs. KUNWAR PRASAD SINGH & 3 ORS; MANAGER, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD; ARVIND CHOURASIYA FIELD OFFICER, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant / respondent No.1 Kunwar Prasad Singh purchased a truck with trolley and hull from the petitioner and got the same financed from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The delivery of the trolley however was not given to him. At the time of purchase, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was followed by payments of Rs.1,50,000/- on 11.10.2013, Rs. 22,000/- on 18.10.2013, Rs.1,45,000/- on 16.11.2013, Rs.85,000/- on 16.11.2013, thereby making a total sum of Rs.4,52,000/-. According to the complainant, since delivery of the trolley had not been given to him, only a sum of Rs.1,83,000/- had remained payable by him. This is also the case of the complainant / respondent No.1 that the petitioner, in connivance with the financer, made out a loan of Rs. 4,08,087/- to him under hire-purchase of the tractor and hull. He further alleged that after taking Rs.65,900/- from him on 10.6.2014, a sum of Rs.3,95,400/- was demanded from him. Thus, according to the complainant he paid a total sum of Rs.5,17,900/-. The tractor was repossessed on 15.3.2015. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been paid to it comprising payment of Rs.50,000/- at the time of purchase and Rs.1,50,000/- on 11.10.2013. The sale of the trolley along with tractor was denied. The receipts of Rs.2,50,000/- alleged to have been issued by the petitioner were also denied in the reply filed by the petitioner before the District Forum. It was alleged that the payment had been made by the son of the complainant to one Alok Gupta, who had issued forged receipts to the complainant. It was also stated in the reply that the purchase was financed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., to the extent of Rs.3,94,000/-.

(3.) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. resisted the complaint, alleging therein that inclusive of the finance, they had paid Rs.4,08,087/- and out of that amount only Rs.65,900/- were paid by the complainant. It was further alleged that since the complainant did not pay the remaining installments, the vehicle was repossessed in accordance with law.