First Appeal No. 139 of 2013. Case: Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Ramesh Ganapati Bavadhankar. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 139 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mangesh Patel, Adv. |
| Judges | R.C. Chavan, Presiding Member and Usha S. Thakare, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | 2015 (2) AllMR 102 |
| Judgement Date | January 21, 2015 |
| Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Judgment:
R.C. Chavan, Presiding Member
-
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in Consumer Case No. 2335/2009 and directing the appellant Financer to pay a sum of Rs. 1,17,650/- with interest @9% per annum, further compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:
The Complainant had purchased the second hand Tata Tipper for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- after obtaining finance of Rs. 2,60,000/- from the appellant. He had also given blank post dated cheques. Complainant himself admitted that he earned good income for about 4-5 months, but, there was no adequate work thereafter. According to the complainant without giving any prior notice. the appellant employees took away the vehicle by forcibly taking it away from the complainant's driver. On 02.06.2009 the Complainant was served with a notice to pay a sum of Rs. 3,40,221/- within three days. The complainant was threatened that, failure to pay this amount would result in sale of the vehicle. The vehicle was illegally sold for Rs. 1,40,000/-. The Complainant then filed consumer complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 20,000/- per month for seven months towards loss of income on account of unlawful towing away the vehicle and costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
-
The opponent contested this complaint by pointing out that the complainant had defaulted in repayment of the loan. He had been duly informed in advance that the vehicle would be taken away if the loan is not repaid and thereafter, the vehicle was taken away and sold only after giving the complainant an opportunity to clear the loan. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
-
After considering the rival contentions, the Forum came to pass the impugned order.
-
We have heard Advocate Mr. Mangesh Patel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent though duly served with the notice.
-
The Forum has itself noticed in paragraph No. 7 of the impugned order that on 21.11.2008 there were arrears of Rs. 48,314/- and on 1.3.01.2009 there were further arrears of Rs. 64,382/-. On the notice issued by the appellant the complainant had written on the reverse that he wanted to repay the arrears and had stated that he would himself deliver the possession of the vehicle to the appellant if he did not repay. Thus, the fact of arrears is sufficiently established. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial