KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD Vs. YUSUF MASIH
LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2010-8-5
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 31,2010

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Yusuf Masih Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) YUSUF Masih respondent purchased Indica Deluxe Car for a sum of Rs. 3,29,906/ - on 31.5.2001. Out of this amount, he had made the down payment of Rs. 82,906/ - while he had taken the loan amount of Rs. 2,47,000/ - from the appellants. This amount was repayable to the appellants in 41 monthly instalments of Rs. 7600/ - each. The agreement arrived at between the parties was to expire on 15.9.2004. The respondent had issued the post dated cheques to the appellants for all the instalments for the dates with effect from 15.7.2001 to 15.9.2004 each amounting to Rs. 7600/ -.
(2.) IT was further pleaded that the respondent started making the payment of instalments towards the loan. However, the cheques dated 15.4.2002 and 15.5.2002 for two instalments i. e. for the months of April and May, 2002 presented by the appellants were dishonoured. The reason was that relative of the respondent had fallen seriously ill and he could not deposit the requisite funds in his bank account for clearance of these two cheques. However, the respondent had immediately informed the appellants not to present these cheques. The respondent had also assured the appellants that the payment of these two cheques would be made by him to the appellants in the month of June, 2002 alongwith any incidental and fine charges. The appellants had assured the respondent not to present these two cheques.
(3.) IT was further pleaded that contrary to their assurance, the appellants had presented these cheques but these could not be honoured for want of funds in that account. The appellants served the legal notice on the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 10.6.2002 in which the respondent was required to make the payment of both these dishonoured cheques. The respondent approached the appellants and assured them that he would make the entire payment of the defaulted cheques. It was further pleaded that the appellants without sending any agreement termination notice or notice for repossession of the car, took the car of the respondent in a forcible and illegal manner. The appellants had taken the car to their office. The respondent and his wife rushed to the office of the appellants along with the demand draft of the entire payment which had become due for payment. The respondent and his wife requested the appellants to receive the entire due payment and to return the car. The appellants admitted having repossessed the car and assured the respondent that they would obtain the sanction from their head office for return of the car and the car would be released very soon.;


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