MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES Vs. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-4-5
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 08,2009

Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Services Appellant
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) RESPONDENT filed complaint against the appellants alleging therein, that vehicle bearing registration No. HP -22 -5602, Armada Jeep was got financed by him from the appellants in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs. Financed amount with interest was repayable in 36 monthly instalments. As per version of the appellants vehicle was voluntarily surrendered by the respondent vide surrender letter dated 3.3.2005, Annexure R -7 filed with their reply to the complaint. Financing of vehicle by the appellants and respondent having defaulted in the payment of instalments is made out from the stand of both the parties as per record.
(2.) SINCE respondent was in default he was called upon by the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 72,000 on or before 31.3.2005. Respondent having paid a sum of Rs. 35,000 through a bank draft is again admitted by the appellants, but according to them cheque of Rs. 12,000 dated 14.1.2005 was dishonoured by the banker of the respondent due to insufficiency of funds as per Annexure R -4 the memo shows that this cheque was returned on 26.4.2005 by the banker of the appellants.
(3.) IN this background the plea of the appellants that vehicle was voluntarily surrendered neither stands to reason nor to logic. Reason for making this observation is, that appellants themselves had called upon the respondent to pay Rs. 72,000 on or before 31.3.2005 out of which admittedly he had paid Rs. 35,000. We are unable to understand muchless appreciate, why would he pay Rs. 35,000 and would then voluntarily surrender the vehicle in question vide Annexure R -7 on 3.3.2005. We specifically confronted Mr. Mahajan with this aspect of the case. His only argument was that this is not a case of forcible repossession by his client, but of voluntary handing over of the vehicle by the respondent vide Annexure R -7, as such District Forum below was not justified in allowing the complaint in the following terms: "The opposite parties are ordered and directed to return the vehicle bearing registration No. HP -22 -5602 to the complainant in the same condition, in which it was taken by them on 3.3.2005 within 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The opposite parties are further ordered and directed to supply the copy of statement of accounts of the vehicle and return the power of attorney taken by the opposite parties qua the vehicle at the time of execution of agreement of loan and to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 as compensation for causing harassment to the complainant besides litigation cost, which we assess at Rs. 1,000. Certified copy of this order, be supplied to the parties, free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to record room." Case as set up in the complaint was, that the vehicle in question was forcibly repossessed by the hired hoodlums of the appellants who made him to vacate the vehicle under threat to his life, as well as persons accompanying him named in paragraph 4 of the complaint file. When a reference is made to reply to this particular para, appellants have reiterated what has been noted above regarding voluntary surrender of the vehicle.;


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