State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. ... vs Salim Mohammed Momin, on 16 December, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI First Appeal no.602/2007 @ M.A. No. 827/2007 Date of Filing: 14/05/2007 In Consumer Complaint No.409/2005 Addl.District Consumer Forum:Thane Date of Order: 16/12/2008 1. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. Appellants 408/409, Devratata, 4th floor, Sector-17, (Org.Opposite Party nos. 1 to 5) Vashi, Navi mumbai- 400 705. 2. Branch Manager, of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. 3. Managing Director, of Shriram Transport Finance Oc.Ltd. 4. Citi Corp Finance (I) Ltd, office at City Corp Centre, V floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, G-Block Mumbai- 400 051. V/S Salim Mohammed Momin, Respondent R/at- Post Shembalpimpri, Taluka- Pusad, (Org.Complainant) Taluka & District- Yavatmal, Maharahstra. Corum : Mr.Justice B.B.Vagyani, Hon'ble President Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member.
Present:
Adv. S.P.Bharti for appellants.
Adv. N.Hoskari for respondent.
:- ORAL ORDER :-
Per Mr.Justice B.B.Vagyani, Hon'ble President Org.Opposite Party nos. 1 to 5 in consumer complaint no. 409/2005 has preferred this appeal, feeling aggrieved by order dt. 12/02/2007 passed by Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane.
We heard Ld.Adv.S.P.Bharti for the appellants and Ld.Adv. N.Hoskari for respondent.
We refer parties by their original status i.e. complainant and opposite parties. The complainant had taken loan from the opposite parties to purchase a vehicle. Accordingly, vehicle was purchased. Admittedly, the complainant committed defaults. The opposite parties repossessed the vehicle. The complainant paid amount defaulted and repossessed the vehicle. The complainant committed defaults second time. Thereafter, the opposite First Appeal no.602/2007 parties repossessed the vehicle. The complainant paid defaulted installments and repossessed the vehicle. The complainant committed default on third time. The opposite parties thereafter, repossessed the vehicle in Feburary-2004. The complainants sent notice on 12/04/2004 and offered to pay defaulted installments. The opposite parties claimed entire amount due. On failure the vehicle was sold. The complainant thereafter, filed consumer complaint and claimed compensation for deficiency in service. The said consumer complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. The opposite parties raised number of defences in the written statement. Opposite parties contended in the written statement that complainant is not a Consumer and that the vehicle is purchased for commercial purpose. It is further contended by the opposite parties that because of repeated defaults, committed by borrower vehicle was repossessed and ultimately, on failure to pay entire due amount, vehicle was sold. It is denied by the opposite parties that they rendered deficient service.
The District Forum came to the conclusion that opposite parties sold the vehicle without giving any prior notice to the complainant. Having noticed the deficiency in service, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,13,022/- to the complainant. District Forum further directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.5,000/- by way of cost of litigation. Opposite parties has challenged the correctness of the order.
The plea with regard to the status of the complainant and commercial purpose is completely side tracked by the District Forum. The District Forum did not even bother to consider the documentary evidence placed on record to show that the complaint filed by the complainant is not a Consumer and that vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. In the complaint it is no doubt averred that complainant has purchased the vehicle for his livelihood. However, there is no whisper in the complaint about self employment. In the written statement, the opposite parties brought on record all the particulars with regard to number of vehicles owned and possessed by the complainant. The documentary evidence placed on record would go to show that complainant has taken loan from the opposite parties and purchased in all five vehicles. Out of five vehicles, the complainant has sold one vehicle. The opposite parties placed on record the extract of First Appeal no.602/2007 registration of vehicles.
Number of vehicles stand in the name of complainant. The complainant has not offered any explanation about number of vehicles owned and possessed by him. The complainant is doing business on a large scale. He owned and possessed number of vehicles for earning profit. We find extremely difficult to digest the argument of Adv. N.Hoskari that the complainant drives vehicle by himself. The possession of five vehicles frustrates the very concept of self employment. The element of self employment is totally lacking in the case in hand. This vital defence is not at all considered by the District Forum. The District Forum did not even take pains to look into the documentary evidence placed on record. The very important defence raised in the written statement is overlooked by the District Forum. Having regard to the material placed on record, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that the vehicles are purchased for commercial purpose.
Ld.Adv.Hoskari argued that opposite parties can not sell the vehicle. He relied upon judgment of Honble National Commission in case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. V/s. S.Vijaya Laxmi III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC). The ratio of Citicorp Finance Ltd. can not be pressed into service because the vehicles were purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and that being the position, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in Consumer Law. Having scanned the entire material placed on record and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to hold that the impugned order under challenge suffers from illegality. In the result, we pass following order:-
:-ORDER-:
1. Appeal stands allowed.
2. Impugned order under challenge quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. Amount deposited by the appellant while obtaining stay order with the Forum below be returned to them
5. M.A. No. 827/2007 stands disposed of.
5. No order as to costs.
6. Pronounced and dictated in open court.
7. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
(S.R.Khanzode) (B.B.Vagyani) Judicial Member President