- (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 30.7.2003 in Complaint No. 347/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short) dismissing the appellant's complaint.
(2.) COMPLAINANT /appellant averred that he had purchased a truck bearing No. MP -23 -D -A/0361 under hire purchase agreement from respondent No. 1. It was further averred that the said vehicle initially belonged to one G.K. Upadhyay and was registered in his name. It was further averred that respondent had assured complainant/appellant that they would get the documents of the said vehicle including registration book from the said earlier purchaser G.K. Upadhyay and would get the name of the appellant recorded in his place. However, the respondent failed to keep up the promise as above, and did not get the name of the complainant/appellant recorded in the registration book of the vehicle; as a result of which the complainant/appellant had to suffer great inconvenience and loss. It was further averred by the complainant/appellant that he had paid Rs. 99,970/ - in instalments till 4.11.1999 towards the hire purchase agreement. It was further averred that on 16.3.2000 the respondents have forcibly seized and taken away the vehicle for default of payment of instalments. It was prayed by the complainant/appellant that the name of the complainant be got recorded in the documents relating to the said vehicle and the vehicle be also directed to be returned to him. It was further prayed that compensation be awarded as against the respondents.
(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the respondents. According to them the complainant did not pay the instalments as per agreement between the parties. It was also averred that many of the post -dated cheques given by the complainant/appellant to the respondents towards instalments were dishonoured and could not be encashed. It was denied that respondents never assured the complainant to get the name of the complainant recorded in the registration book etc. It was averred that form Nos. 29 and 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act were provided to the complainant, for taking necessary action regarding the recording of his name with RTO. It was further averred that as the complainant failed to pay the amount of instalments; hence, the vehicle was seized by the respondents as per terms of the agreement. District Forum in the impugned order observed that as the complainant has failed to pay the monthly instalments as per stipulation between the parties, hence the respondents were justified in seizing and taking away the vehicle as per terms of the agreement and that there was no deficiency in service by the respondents. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.;