S.C. Vyas, J. (President) - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order, dated 24.07.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No. 37/2012, whereby the appellant herein, has been directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/ -, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment by way of compensation to the respondent No. 1/complainant, on account of alleged deficiency in service and also to pay Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/ - as cost of litigation. The facts of the case, in nut shell, are that vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.04 -T -6664 valuing Rs. 6,37,156/ - was purchased by the respondent No. 1/complainant from the respondent No. 2 with the help of finance provided by the appellant herein, for earning his livelihood. At that time a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/ - was paid in cash and remaining amount was made available by the finance company. The vehicle was purchased on 06.04.2010. It was registered in the name of the respondent No. 1/complainant Permit was issued from the office of R.T.O. and then the complainant started using it on the rural routes of Raipur District for the purpose of carrying passengers from 20,04.2010. The amount financed by the appellant was to be repaid @ Rs. 14,736/ - per month as E.M.I. The said vehicle suffered road accident on 01.11.2011 and remained in the garage of the repairer till 31.03.2011. The repairer demanded repairing charges Rs. 1,16,330/ - from the complainant, whereas the Insurance Company paid only Rs. 76,511/ - to the respondent No. 2. It has also been averred by the complainant in the complaint that after repairing, the vehicle was brought by the complainant from service station to home, but thereafter the financier came and under threat got letter of surrender of the vehicle written by him on 25.07.2011 and the vehicle was taken by the financier. Thereafter it was not returned by the financier. On 24.11.2011, the complainant moved an application for return of the vehicle to him, but no heed was paid, then he filed the consumer complaint before District Forum seeking compensation alleging deficiency in service against the financier.
(2.) IN reply of the complaint, the appellant herein, refuted the allegation of highhandedness and threatening the complainant. It has been averred, by the financier in the written version that the vehicle was willfully surrendered by the complainant to the financier, as he was unable to repay the amount of finance in monthly installments for many months. It has also been averred in the written version that at the time of availing financial services, the complainant executed an agreement in favour of the financier, wherein it was agreed by him that the vehicle will remain with the appellant as a security for the loan and post dated cheques were also provided by the complainant to the financier for repayment but those post dated cheques were bounced from the bank of the complainant. Thus, negligence was committed by the complainant himself in repaying the amount of loan. Ultimately he surrendered the vehicle to the financier. Then, after giving pre -sale notice, the vehicle was sold, thus, the financier has not committed any deficiency in service. Learned District Forum, after having considered the rival contentions of both parties by the impugned order came to the conclusion that financier has committed deficiency in service and on the basis of this finding by the impugned order, the appellant -financier has been directed to pay compensation to the complainant.
(3.) WE have heard the arguments advanced by all parties and perused the record of the District Forum.;