RAMDAYAL Vs. MANAGER JILA SAHAKARI BHUMI VIKAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 31.1.1995 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereafter for short "district Forum") Satna in Case No.5/91.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that appellant is a cultivator and he wanted to buy a tractor trolley cultivator and levellor for his field. He therefore got loan sanctioned from respondent and mortgaged his land to buy above agriculture implements and bought SWARAJ 735 tractor from M/s. Hari Traders, Morena (opposite party No.1 ). For this purpose he deposited Rs.31.000/- for tractor and Rs.11,000/- as margin money on 25.7.1991 in respondent Bank. Respondent also directed appellant to deposit Rs.3,636/- as difference money with M/s. Hari Traders, Morena and pick up his tractor. Appellant has averred that he deposited Rs.10.000/- as difference money for tractor and trolley on 30.8.1991 and got his tractor but M/s. Hari Traders neither gave him bill nor explained as to how the money was charged from him. He did not get the trolley either, nor refund of money deposited. Since he could not get trolley and other implements, his work on his field suffered loss badly and he could not deposit the instalments of the loan in the Bank. Respondent Bank thereafter seized his tractor and started auction of the seized property to recover loan money. On his approaching District Authorities, the auction was stopped but the tractor continues in Police Station and appellant alleged that several parts of the tractor have been removed in police station. He therefore filed a complaint in District Forum and prayed for refund of Rs.5,056/- paid as difference money + 2% interest on it and direction to return his tractor to his custody. District Forum after hearing both parties and going through record and affidavits rejected the complaint.

(3.) Appellant has filed this appeal on following grounds. (a) During the pendency of his case in District Forum, opposite party No.3 in the District Forum signed a compromise document with the appellant by which they paid him Rs.5.000/- in cash and Rs.45.000/- by Bank draft for not giving agriculture implements in time. Appellant filed the compromise document in the District Forum on 25.10.1994. This document creates a reasonable doubt in the mind that appellant was not given the goods and was harassed. Otherwise, opposite parties No.1 and 3 would not have entered into a compromise. Even then District Forum did not attach importance to it though appellant had given up his claim only against opposite parties No.1 and 3. (b) District Forum has not given due importance to his plea that respondent-Bank had demonstrated deficiency in service by not going deep into the documents filed by opposite parties No.1 and 3 about handing over trolley, cultivator, levellor to appellant. The action of seizing and trying to auction the tractor for nonpayment of instalment was wrong. In the end appellant prayed for return of tractor with all parts alleged to have been removed after seizure and waiving the interest on instalment.