Ram Deshlahara vs Magma Leasing Ltd. on 29 May, 2006

0
25
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ram Deshlahara vs Magma Leasing Ltd. on 29 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 3 (2006) CPJ 247 NC
Bench: K G Member, R Rao

ORDER

K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)

1. In this revision challenge is to the order dated 14.2.2006 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur dismissing appeal against the order dated 24.1.2005 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. To purchase Indica Car the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs. 2,59,000 from the respondent/opposite party. Loan amount was payable with interest in 30 monthly instalments of Rs. 10,130 each. First instalment was agreed to be paid on 15.5.2003, Petitioner alleged that the respondent possessed the car unauthorizedly on 15.2.2004 and subsequently sold it. Alleging deficiency in service, petitioner filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the respondent.

3. Car was seized by the respondent on 15.2.2004. Order of the State Commissionnotices that despite the service of demand notices dated 24.2.2004 and 27.3.2004 the petitioner did not pay the amount of instalments due and several cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured and there was, thus, no deficiency in service on part of the respondent. Contention advanced by Mr. V.M. Benjamin for petitioner is that no amount was due from the petitioner on the date the car was seized by the respondent. If any amount was due on the date of seizure and not paid despite service of demand notices by the petitioner is a question of fact which cannot be gone into revisional jurisdiction. As noticed above, State Commission has thus returned the finding about the petitioner being in arrear of instalments and having not paid the arrears despite service of demand notice by the respondent finance company. Moreover, under a hire-purchase transaction the financier does not render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) and the petitioner is, thus, not a consumer. We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction in Section 21(b) of the Act. Dismissed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here