Shri Abhijit Barde Vs. Shri Vijay Vithal Kuchekar, Thane and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1111462
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided OnApr-27-2009
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.713 of 2009 @ Misc.Appl.Nos.757 of 2009 & 758 of 2009 (In Consumer Complaint No.105 of 2007)
JudgeShri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
AppellantShri Abhijit Barde
RespondentShri Vijay Vithal Kuchekar, Thane and Others
Advocates:Mr. Yatin Shah, Advocate for the Appellant.
Excerpt:
oral order:- per shri s.r. khanzode, honble presiding judicial member this appeal is directed against the order/award dated 07/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.105/2007 shri vijay vithal kuchekar v/s. minchin business management thru prop. shri abhijit barde and ors. by mumbai suburban district consumer forum (‘forum below in short). it is the case of respondent/org. complainant shri vijay vithal kuchekar that appellant/org. o.p.no.1 represented him that he is the agent of respondent/org. o.p.no.3/icici bank ltd. he further offered his services to procure a vehicle ‘tata spacio at the cost about rs.3,92,780/- for complainant/shri vijay kuchekar and for that to obtain necessary loan from o.p.no.3/icici bank ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘bank for brevity). the vehicle was to be taken from o.p.no.2/hyan motors (hereinafter referred as ‘dealer for brevity). accordingly on making down payment as well as registration and insurance charges, o.p.no.1 had taken complainant to o.p.no.2/dealer and gave a tata spacio vehicle to the complainant. complainant had given 60 blank cheques towards repayment of loan as well as signed blank papers as required by o.p.no.1. loan amount was also paid as per monthly installments. complainant also used the said vehicle giving it on hire. on 16/01/2006 when the complainant went to icici bank and requested for his loan account statement, for the first time he came to know that loan is not shown as taken on his tata spacio vehicle, but on record it is shown as against tata sumo-se-ii model and price of which is on higher side at rs.5,44,000/­- and total loan amount was shown as rs.4,01,362/- to which the complainant never agreed or received. thus, he felt cheated. he questioned all concerned. subsequently, mr.sanjay jadhav, agent of o.p.no.3/bank, on the ground of default of loan repayment, taken into his custody r.c. book of the vehicle and thereafter the bank fraudulently obtained custody of the said vehicle and then, without notice to the complainant, sold the vehicle. ultimately, this consumer complaint was filed, which was decreed in favour of the complainant and feeling aggrieved thereby, o.p.no.1 preferred this appeal. there is an inordinate delay of 316 days in filing the appeal. same is not at all satisfactorily explained. it cannot be believed that appellant/o.p.no.1 was not aware of the award passed in the proceeding. hence, application for condonation of delay bearing no.757/2009 deserves to be dismissed. by way of abundant precaution, we heard mr.yatin shah, advocate appearing for the appellant on merits too for admission. perused the papers. it is revealed from the material placed on record that though appellant/o.p.no.1 actually agreed and accordingly even procured a vehicle tata spacio for the complainant, it is he, who all the while dealt with and coordinate the transaction including procuring loan from o.p.no.3/bank and getting delivery of the vehicle from o.p.no.2/dealer. however, r.c. book which was handed over to complainant was also of the vehicle tata spacio. in spite of this, as it revealed the loan documents appeared to have been obtained for different vehicle tata sumo and that too for higher amount of loan as shown on the record. this speaks for malafide as well as unfair trade practice on the part of o.p.no.1/abhijeet barde, who is proprietor of minchin business management and though the actual vehicle tata spacio was given, papers were shown for another vehicle. obviously o.p.no.2 and 3 did hand glove with o.p.no.1 for that purpose. forum below considered all these aspects and rightly awarded compensation to the complainant to the extent of refund of consideration paid in the form of refund of loan amount. appellant/o.p.no.1 submits that he is no way concerned in the transaction, but it cannot be believed because he is the kingpin of the entire fraudulent conduct. we find appeal devoid of any substance. hence the order :- order: 1. misc. appl. no. 757/2009 for condonation of delay stands dismissed. 2. appeal stands dismissed in limine. 3. no order as to costs. 4. misc. appl. no.758/2009, which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous. 5. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Judgment:

Oral Order:-

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 07/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.105/2007 Shri Vijay Vithal Kuchekar V/s. Minchin Business Management thru Prop. Shri Abhijit Barde and Ors. by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum (‘Forum below in short).

It is the case of respondent/org. complainant Shri Vijay Vithal Kuchekar that appellant/org. O.P.No.1 represented him that he is the Agent of respondent/org. O.P.No.3/ICICI Bank Ltd. He further offered his services to procure a vehicle ‘Tata Spacio at the cost about Rs.3,92,780/- for complainant/Shri Vijay Kuchekar and for that to obtain necessary loan from O.P.No.3/ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘Bank for brevity). The vehicle was to be taken from O.P.No.2/Hyan Motors (hereinafter referred as ‘Dealer for brevity). Accordingly on making down payment as well as registration and insurance charges, O.P.No.1 had taken complainant to O.P.No.2/dealer and gave a Tata Spacio vehicle to the complainant. Complainant had given 60 blank cheques towards repayment of loan as well as signed blank papers as required by O.P.No.1. Loan amount was also paid as per monthly installments. Complainant also used the said vehicle giving it on hire. On 16/01/2006 when the complainant went to ICICI Bank and requested for his loan account statement, for the first time he came to know that loan is not shown as taken on his Tata Spacio vehicle, but on record it is shown as against Tata Sumo-SE-II Model and price of which is on higher side at Rs.5,44,000/­- and total loan amount was shown as Rs.4,01,362/- to which the complainant never agreed or received. Thus, he felt cheated. He questioned all concerned. Subsequently, Mr.Sanjay Jadhav, Agent of O.P.No.3/Bank, on the ground of default of loan repayment, taken into his custody R.C. Book of the vehicle and thereafter the Bank fraudulently obtained custody of the said vehicle and then, without notice to the complainant, sold the vehicle. Ultimately, this consumer complaint was filed, which was decreed in favour of the complainant and feeling aggrieved thereby, O.P.No.1 preferred this appeal.

There is an inordinate delay of 316 days in filing the appeal. Same is not at all satisfactorily explained. It cannot be believed that appellant/O.P.No.1 was not aware of the award passed in the proceeding. Hence, application for condonation of delay bearing No.757/2009 deserves to be dismissed.

By way of abundant precaution, we heard Mr.Yatin Shah, Advocate appearing for the appellant on merits too for admission. Perused the papers.

It is revealed from the material placed on record that though appellant/O.P.No.1 actually agreed and accordingly even procured a vehicle Tata Spacio for the complainant, it is he, who all the while dealt with and coordinate the transaction including procuring loan from O.P.No.3/Bank and getting delivery of the vehicle from O.P.No.2/dealer. However, R.C. Book which was handed over to complainant was also of the vehicle Tata Spacio. In spite of this, as it revealed the loan documents appeared to have been obtained for different vehicle Tata Sumo and that too for higher amount of loan as shown on the record. This speaks for malafide as well as unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.No.1/Abhijeet Barde, who is proprietor of Minchin Business Management and though the actual vehicle Tata Spacio was given, papers were shown for another vehicle. Obviously O.P.No.2 and 3 did hand glove with O.P.No.1 for that purpose. Forum below considered all these aspects and rightly awarded compensation to the complainant to the extent of refund of consideration paid in the form of refund of loan amount. Appellant/O.P.No.1 submits that he is no way concerned in the transaction, but it cannot be believed because he is the kingpin of the entire fraudulent conduct. We find appeal devoid of any substance. Hence the order :-

Order:

1. Misc. Appl. No. 757/2009 for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

2. Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Misc. Appl. No.758/2009, which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous.

5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.