MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Vs. MOHAN PRASAD YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 16.03.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred for short as ''District Forum '') in Complaint Case No.217/2007, whereby the complaint of complainant was allowed and the OPs were directed to return the vehicle No.C.G. -15 A/3646 to the complainant in running condition failing which to pay the value of the vehicle Rs.3,40,000/ - along with interest @ 7% p.a. from 08.05.2007 till final payment, also Rs.1,000/ - towards compensation for mental agony with cost of litigation Rs.2,000/ -. OPs, having been aggrieved by the impugned order, have filed this appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case as averred in the complaint are that the complainant had made a sale agreement on 29.10.2005 with OPs in respect of two repossessed Swaraj Mazda vehicles having registration Nos.C.G.15 -A -3646 and C.G.07 -C -2210. Complainant averred that he had deposited with OPs Rs.2,00,000/ - by way of cheque and Rs.3,40,000/ - in cash. Complainant alleged that O.P.No.2 had credited the amount deposited by him in the account of different persons namely Sachin Tiwari, Rajendra Prasad Sahu, Shri Kumar, Ram Kumar Sahu, Sandip Kumar Gupta, and on raising objection for the same, O.P. no.2 informed that on the direction of the company only, registration no. of two vehicles had been mentioned in the receipts. Complainant averred that O.P.No.2 subsequently promised to deliver vehicles No.C.G.07 -C -2210 and vehicle No.CG.15 -A/3646.

(3.) O .P.No.2 in its reply averred that it had not entered into any sale agreement with the complainant. O.P.No.2 also averred that the complainant could have deposited outstanding loan dues in respects of those defaulters from whom he had purchased the vehicles, collect NOC and use the same. O.P.No.2 further averred that it had no connection with the complainant and another person Vijay Singh had filed tenders after issue of sale advertisement by the company and the complainant wanted to get vehicles under some agreement. OP.2 further averred that it had to issue receipts to the depositor of amount in respect of the defaulting persons from whom vehicle was proposed to be purchased, so receipts were issued accordingly to the complainant thus it was not a deficiency in service. O.P. No.2 has also averred that the complainant deals in the business of sale and purchase of vehicles so it was for commercial purpose as such he did not come in the category of ''consumer '' as per definition u/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore the complaint was liable to be dismissed.