Case nº Revision Petition No. 508 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 23/11/2015 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Maharastra) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, December 06, 2016 (case 1. Samadhan and Anr. 2. Maharashtra Urban Co-Operative Bank Vs Dattu)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep R. Adkine, Adv. |
| President | Mrs. M. Shreesha,Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | December 06, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
M. Shreesha, Member
-
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ''the Act'') is to the order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench, Aurangabad (in short, ''the State Commission''), in First Appeal No. FA/14/100, preferred by the First Opposite Party. By the impugned order, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aurangabad (in short, ''the District Forum) and allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Complainant, directing the Opposite Parties to handover the possession of the tractor in question, to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, together with compensation of `2,20,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., w.e.f. 18.04.2010, with default interest @ 12% p.a.
-
The brief facts material to the case are that the Complainant, on 26.02.2009, purchased a Tractor from Opposite Party No.1, i.e., Samadhan Tayade, Proprietor of Kishan Tractor, by obtaining a loan of `6,18,500/- from Opposite Party No.2, i.e., Maharashtra Urban Co-operative Bank Credit Society Ltd. According to the Complainant, he purchased the Tractor for `7,31,710/- by depositing ` 2,16,000/-, with the Opposite Parties, (`2,00,000/- as margin money and `16,000/- towards insurance amount). It was averred that the Opposite Parties did not issue any receipt to the Complainant after receipt of the said amount, i.e., ` 2,16,000/-.
-
It was averred that the statement of the loan account was not given to the Complainant; that he paid the first installment on 18.03.2010 and without giving any opportunity to the Complainant for paying the balance installments, the Second Opposite Party seized the Tractor in the month of May, 2010; even, the Complainant had paid an amount of ` 1,00,000/- on 26.05.2010, yet, the Tractor was not returned. Hence, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial