TATA MOTORS LTD. Vs. INDRASEN CHOUBEY & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case there was a hire -purchase agreement between the complainant and the revision petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle was seized and auctioned without intimation to him. Therefore, he had filed a complaint seeking relief from the District Forum.

(2.) IN its written version the petitioner had submitted that the said vehicle was seized from the possession of the complainant Indrasen Chaubey and it was informed to the P.S. Jaitpura, Varanasi accordingly on 18.2.1999. Therefore, there was no question of information on 24.2.1999 and 5.4.1999 and it was auctioned on 23.4.1999. The complainant did not pay any instalment till then and filed the complaint with altogether false and frivolous facts as such it is liable to be rejected. It is clear from the terms and conditions of the agreement that the vehicle shall be seized in case the purchaser fails to deposit even one instalment or so within the scheduled time and the vehicle shall be auctioned in case the instalment is not paid even on that occasion as it has happened in this case. Hence the petition is liable to be rejected.

(3.) DISTRICT Forum had dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant had filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission on re -appraisal of the evidence and the facts of the case, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,29,126 to be paid within two months failing which 9% interest will be payable by the petitioner to the complainant/respondent.