M/S. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AND ORS MAHINDRA TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, WORLI ROAD, 13 Vs. RAMESH SAWANT SON OF SHRI JAGAT RAM SAWANT, R/O VILLAGE SHAHON, P.O. GARAOG, TEHSIL KOTKHAI, H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the order dated 06.07.2007, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 24/2005, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Sawant, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla on 11.01.2005, allowing the consumer complaint no. 117/2003, filed by the present respondent, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Mahindra & Mahindra Utility vehicle, bearing registration no. HP09 4286 under hire-purchase agreement with the opposite parties/OPs/petitioners. The complainant made a lump sum payment of Rs. 1,15,440.00 on 11.05.2000 to the OPs. The OPs provided a loan of Rs. 2,55,000.00 on which, the complainant was to be charged an interest of Rs. 70,491.00. The amount of Rs. 2,55,000.00 along with Rs. 70,491.00 was to be repaid by the complainant in 35 instalments, the last instalment being payable on 31.03.2003. It is stated that the OPs charged a sum of Rs. 3,74,190.00 inclusive of a sum of Rs. 1,15,440.00, but the vehicle was repossessed by the OPs on 20.03.2003 for non-payment of some of the instalments of the loan. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking return of the vehicle, or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 3,74,190.00 plus Rs. 1,15,440.00 along with interest, damages, cost of litigation etc.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint and the complainant was not a consumer, because the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. It was also stated that the vehicle had been rightly repossessed, because of default by the complainant in making payment of the instalments in time. The complainant had agreed to pay hire charges of Rs. 10,965.00 only for the first 17 months and thereafter, to pay hire charges of Rs. 7,727/- every month for the balance 18 months, failing which, late charges equal to 3% per month on the hire charges were to be paid. The OP stated that they had received only 27 hire charges from the complainant and the same were also highly delayed. Despite persistent follow-up and calling upon the complainant to pay the outstanding amount, he failed to pay the dues to the OPs, who were well within their rights to repossess the vehicle. He also stated that several cheques issued by the complainant had been dishonoured.