ASAD ULLAH KHAN Vs. M C MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complainant's appeal against the order dated 28.8.1995 passed in Case No.90/93 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a Canter Truck bearing No. MP 19-3529 financed by the respondent No.2 under hire purchase agreement. In terms of the said agreement the amount of Rs.2,40,300/- so advanced was to be paid in 24 monthly instalments. The said truck met with an accident on 19.7.1990 which was sent by the respondent No.2 Financier to the workshop of respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company assessed the damage of Rs.99,228/- which was paid to the repairer. After its repair the possession of the truck was not delivered to the appellant-complainant, therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service filed the complainant against the repairer, financier and the insurer. The respondent No.1 averred that actual charges of repairs were Rs.1,43,674.28 paise and on payment of the balance amount of Rs.44,446.28 paise by the financier who sent the truck for repairs the delivery was made to the respondent No.2. The complainant after making the payment of first instalment of Rs.12,015/- did not make any payment from 2nd instalment of Rs.12,015/- to 12th instalment of the same amount and from 13th monthly instalment of Rs.8,010/-. Therefore, in terms of the hire purchase agreement in default of payment of monthly instalments and in not making the payment of balance amount of repair charges, the agreement was terminated and possession of the truck was retained it is a dispute between the hire purchaser and the financier which cannot be adjudicated in the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer FORA. The respondent No.3 averr that in terms of insurance policy and IMT 55 as the vehicle was subject to hypothetical agreement, the amount assessed by the Surveyor of the damage was paid to the repairer. There was no deficiency in service. the District Forum after appreciation of evidence did not find any deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties, hence dismissed the complaint.

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the record we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. In fact, it is a dispute between the hire purchaser and the financier in view of their contractual relationship in terms of the hire purchase agreement. Therefore, unless it is established that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the financier in terms of the agreement. The dispute could not be decided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Remedy if any, available to the complainant is to file a civil suit for the declaration and for possession of the truck. The appellant if so advised may take appropriate proceedings in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. See the decision of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case of Pravinchandra Hargovindas Joshi V/s. DCM Toyota Ltd. and Ors., 1997 1 CPJ 129.