- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 23.10.2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as 'District Forum' for short), in complaint case No.09/ 2008, whereby the complaint was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 23.3.2004 the complainant had purchased Tata Pickup Van, bearing registration No.MP -18 H -2856 from OPs and on the same date insurance coverage was obtained for the vehicle. The complainant had obtained finance from the OPs. As per averments of the complainant, the complainant was making regular payment of due installments. The OP No.1 demanded installments of August 2004 with additional charges of Rs.7,000 but the complainant was surprised as the amount for the month of August, 2004 had already been paid by him. He went to the office of the OP No. 1 to show the receipt for the amount of Rs. 14.000 deposited in the month of August, 2004. As per averments of the complaint, employee of the OP No.l took the receipt inside the office and then he brought back the receipt, but the month mentioned in the receipt was changed from 08 to 09 and he told the complainant that the amount has been taken in account, in the month of September, 2004. It was further averred by the complainant that on 16.2.2006 the vehicle was stolen while it was parked in village Tendua, Dharsinwa, District Raipur. The complainant made efforts to know about the whereabouts of the vehicle but when he failed, he tried to lodge report at Urla Police Station, but report was not lodged. It was further averred in the complaint that on 2.3.2006 the complainant also tried to make complaint to the Superintendent of Police, in this regard but no action was taken. As per averments of the complaint on 21.11.2007, OP No.l orally informed the complainant that his vehicle bearing No. MP -18 -H -2856 was repossessed and sold. Thereafter, OP No.l demanded repossession charges of Rs.7,000 together with remaining financed amount of Rs.33,460.80p. It was averred by the complainant that the vehicle of his ownership was stolen and wrongly sold by OP No. 1, but, the same still remained registered in his name at RTO, Shahdol. This act on part of OP No.l amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence, a sum of Rs.7,56,950 was claimed under the complaint.
(3.) OPS jointly resisted the complaint. It was averred in the written version that installment to be paid by the complainant was Rs, 11,180 per month and the complainant was negligent towards repayment. He was ignoring the terms of agreement. It was also averred that officer of OP No.l gave intimation regarding repayment in writing and thereafter the vehicle was repossessed. After repossession on 24.2.06 pre -sale notice was sent to the complainant but the complainant refused to accept the same. A sum of Rs.2,01,257 was outstanding. Hence, there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the OPs. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. The District Forum relied on the version of the OPs and dismissed the complaint.;