MANAGER, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD Vs. MAST RAM SHARMA S/O GOPI RAM SHARMA
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-7-3
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 06,2010

Manager, Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Service Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
Mast Ram Sharma S/O Gopi Ram Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal was heard at Bilaspur on 25.06.2010, when it was ordered that judgment will be conveyed to the parties in due course. While preparing the case for judgment, certain clarifications were required from the appellant, as such Mr. Rahul Mahajan, leaned counsel for the appellant was called upon to argue the matter afresh. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant again today.
(2.) IN support of this appeal, Mr. Mahajan submitted that there was no "consumer dispute" between the parties as his client was not rendering any service and the respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, therefore District Forum below lacked inherent jurisdiction to have entertained, muchless decided the complaint. His next submission was that District Forum, Bilaspur fell into error by ignoring this vital aspect. Since the vehicle was re -possessed in terms of contract subject to which it was financed by the appellant, therefore no exception can be taken to action. In support of this submission, Mr. Mahajan further submitted that Court should not have re -write the contract between the parties, rather has to interpret the same as per its terms and conditions. Vehicle was sold as far back as in September, 2005, thus the complaint was hopelessly barred by time. On all these grounds this appeal deserves to be allowed, and after setting aside the impugned order, the complaint needs to be dismissed. These were the grounds on which we are addressed by Mr. Vipul Handa at Bilaspur.
(3.) ALL these pleas were seriously contested and resisted by Mr. B. S. Dhiman, learned counsel for the respondent. Per him, what is being urged with a view to allow this appeal, there is no material on record placed by the appellant. According to him the impugned order needs to be upheld while dismissing the appeal with heavy costs. We shall first take up the plea of there being no "consumer dispute" as claimed on behalf of the appellant. All contracts and other instruments besides being governed under the law of contract, terms of these have always to be subject to the provisions of the Constitution of India. In case we come to the conclusion that contract in this case is not in consonance with the spirit of Constitution when it is tested on the touchstone of reasonableness within the meaning of Article -14 of Constitution of India, no benefit can be derived by the appellant from such a contract.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.