Decided on December 21,2010

Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Services Limited Appellant
Kaptan Singh Son Of Amar Singh And Ors Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chamba, H. P. , dated 27.03.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 45/2007, whereby the complaint of the respondent No. 1 was partly allowed and the appellant was directed to handover the possession of the vehicle within 30 days after the receipt of copy of the impugned order, failing which to refund Rs. 2,09,650/ - to the respondent No. 1 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, till its realization and further the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation. Litigation cost was also quantified at Rs. 2,000/ -.
(2.) THE facts of the case as they emerged from the complaint are that that the respondent No. 1 had purchased one Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. PB -10T -2382 for a sum of Rs. 4,34,810/ - from the appellant through its agent respondent No. 2 on 28.10.2004 and out of total consideration of said amount, the respondent No. 1 had paid Rs. 1,20,000/ - in cash to the appellant on the same day and for balance it was got financed from the appellant vide agreement No. B -54760 and monthly installment had been settled at Rs. 8,500/ - per month. Further averments in the complaint are to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had paid Rs. 2,09,650/ - to the appellant, but due to some financial crisis, he could not pay the balance amount in time and as a result thereof gundas of the appellant had illegally and forcibly taken the possession of the vehicle from the house of the respondent No. 1 on 28.08.2006 and as such there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.
(3.) IN this background, complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed against the appellant, wherein prayer had been made to order for the return of vehicle to the respondent No. 1 forthwith or to refund an amount of Rs. 2,09,650/ - to the respondent No. 1 alongwith interest at the bank rate. In addition to this, a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - was also claimed as compensation for causing monetary loss and agony. The peculiar features of the case is that in the present case, the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 were duly served and they were duly represented by Mr. K. K. Kapoor, Advocate on 28.05.2008 and case was fixed for filing reply on 26.06.2008, but thereafter none appeared on their behalf and as such the appellant and respondent No. 2 were proceeded against ex -parte and even reply to the complaint was also not filed in the present case.;

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