- (1.) THIS order will govern disposal of Appeal Nos. 227/2009 and 04/2009, which have been filed by both the parties having been aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja, Ambikapur (hereinafter referred for short "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 47/2008, whereby the complaint was partly allowed. Complainant has filed appeal for enhancement of the award, while the O.P. has filed appeal to set aside the order. For convenience parties will be referred as complainant and O.P. No. 1 to OP. No. 6 as per their status before the District Forum. Original of this order will be retained in file of appeal No. 227/2009 and its copy be placed in file of Appeal No. 04/2009.
(2.) FACTS of the case as averred by the complainant in his complaint are that on proposal of O.P. No. 1, he had availed finance of Rs. 80,801 for purchase of a vehicle Tempo Trax Cargo (Pick Up) having Registration No. M.P. 18 -H.2488 which was assessed for value of Rs. 1,80,000. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant. Out of the financed amount, Rs. 77,000 was towards margin money, Rs. 7,700 was towards first instalment of loan repayment and Rs. 3,101 was towards other charges. The balance loan amount was to be repaid in 16 instalments, which were also repaid. Complainant averred that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, it was assured by O.P. No. 1 that all papers related to the vehicle such as Registration, Insurance for one year, Taxes, Transfer of vehicle in the name of complainant, would be provided within a week so that he could use the vehicle, earn money and repay loan in instalments. Complainant averred that O.P. No. 1 was paid Rs. 8,465 towards additional advance premium and onhis direction Rs. 10,000 was paid to O.P. No. 4 towards taxes. Complainant averred that he was assured issuance of pucca receipts within a week time. Complainant further averred that he paid 8 instalments ?(c) Rs. 7,700 and 9th instalment of Rs. 5,000 out of which amount of initial 8 instalments were collected by OP Nos. 1, 2 whereas 9th instalment was collected by OP No. 2. Complainantaverredthatkuchchi'receipts for initial 8 instalments were issued by Shrachi Infrastructure Finance Company Ltd. and receipt for 9th instalment was issued by Megma Leasing Ltd. Complainant further averred that despite repeated reminders OPs neither provided documents related to the vehicle nor did provide pucca receipts for the amount collected. Subsequently on 5.1.2007 O.P. No. 1 provided some documents which were defective. The registration of the vehicle was for Madhya Pradesh, instead of Chhattisgarh, the address of the complainant in registration certificate was wrongly mentioned as resident of Anuppur (M.P). Insurance of the vehicle was done in the name of the previous owner instead of the name of the complainant. Amount of tax was deposited at the time of sale of vehicle yet advance tax was not paid by OPs. Complainant averred that a written complaint was lodged with OPs on 3.12.2007 and also Advocate notice on 18.12.2007 even then neither documents of the vehicle were provided nor compensation. Complainant averred that due to aforesaid deficiency he could not use the vehicle. Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs. 3,85,000 due to non use of the vehicle from 11.7.2006 to 16.1.2008 ?(r) Rs. 700 for 550 days, Rs. 8465 towards insurance premium amount, Rs. 10,000 towards tax amount, Rs. 5,000 towards correspondence and legal expenses and Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony, total Rs. 4,58,465.
(3.) O .P. Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 in their joint reply before the District Forum averred that it had financed Rs. 1,10,000 under hire purchase agreement which along with interest for Rs. 23,000 was to be repaid by 15.12.2007 but the complainant paid in all only Rs. 43,500. Said OPs have averred that it only finances under hire purchase scheme and it does not sell vehicles. The complainant had been in defaults in repayment of loan instalments. Said OPs denied that it had assured to provide documents of registration, insurance, taxes, etc. of the vehicle within a week time. Said OPs also denied that at the direction of O.P. No. 1 Rs. 10,000 was paid by the complainant to O.P. No. 4. Said OPs averred that it had no relation with O.P. No. 4. It was also denied that Rs. 8,465 was paid by the complainant to O.P. No. 1. Said OPs have also averred that the complainant has filed complaint with an intent to escape the liability of loan dues and he is not entitled for any compensation. Op No. 4 in its reply before the District Forum averred that he was neither an R.T.O. agent nor an employee of Ops. The complainant had made false allegations against him. Op No. 4 averred that he had no transaction with the complainant and no loss was caused by him to the complainant.;