Decided on August 13,2009

Saroj Sharma W/O Sh Radhey Shyam Appellant
Behl Brothers Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 332/2002 dated 6.11.2006 whereby the said complaint of the appellant has been dismissed by holding that she has not been able to establish on record any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent -financier, and parties have been left to bear their own costs.
(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record are, that appellant got a Maruti Omni Van (five seater) bearing registration No. HP -02 -6408 financed from the respondents for a sum of Rs. 1,90,700/ - vide lease agreement dated 24.10.1998. As per terms of said agreement Annexure C -1 the aforesaid sum was to be paid in 34 monthly installments, one of the monthly installment was to be of Rs. 11,180/ -. Payment was to commence from 10.10.1998. In case of overdue payment, then under the agreement interest @ 3% per month on such amount was payable.
(3.) APPELLANT was paying monthly installments of the aforesaid vehicle to the respondents -financiers regularly as per schedule. However she could not pay few installments to the respondents, as the driver of the vehicle started suffering from back -ache. Further averments in the complaint are that in the month of August, 2000, five persons approached the driver of the appellant and compelled him to handover the Maruti Van as an amount of Rs. 92,504/ - was due and outstanding payable by the appellant on 17.8.2000, and they took forcible possession of the said vehicle. Thereafter the appellant approached the respondents for amicable settlement, but she was astonished, that on 17.8.2000 the outstanding amount as per financiers -respondents was mentioned to be Rs. 92,504/ -, whereas as per account statement which was provided to her, it indicated the amount to be Rs. 1,53,365/ -. It was also alleged in the complaint that appellant approached the respondents -financiers repeatedly to handover the possession of the vehicle and to settle the dispute, but of no avail. In the above background complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking directions against the respondents to handover possession of maruti van or in the alternative if it had been sold, then the maruti van of the same model and make be got delivered to her. Besides this, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - for mental agony and financial hardship and cost of litigation was also claimed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.