w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v/s Mukesh Kumar & Another

    Reivision Petition No. 2108 of 2015

    Decided On, 15 April 2019

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioner: Amit Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo (Served).

Judgment Text

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.—the Petitioner against the order dated 26.5.2015 in First Appeal No. 1155/2009 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

2.Facts in brief are that a vehicle was financed by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1. Some installments were not paid by the Respondent No. 1 and notice was issued to the Respondent No. 1. However, in the meanwhile, the vehicle met with an accident and was taken to the Respondent No. 2 for repairs.

3.The Petitioner issued a letter on 24.12.2007 to the Respondent No. 2 that the vehicle be retained for non-payment of installments by the Respondent No. 1. Then on 14.3.2008, again a letter was sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1 to repay the remaining amount of the loan for vehicle which was retained by the Respondent No. 2 otherwise the vehicle shall be sold.

4.It is the case of the Petitioner that the Complainant took away the vehicle forcibly from the premises of Respondent No. 2 on 15.3.2008.

5.A complaint was filed by the Respondent No. 1 before the District Forum stating that his vehicle has been repossessed by the Petitioner and his vehicle may be sold and after adjusting the remaining loan amount remaining amount may be paid to the Complainant.

6.The complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party. However, the District Forum allowed the complaint by passing the following order:

“That as a result the complaint of the complainant is allowed against the Non-Applicants and Non Applicants are directed to sell the vehicle of complainant bearing No. PB 15 C 0560 within the period of one month and the sale proceeds shall be adjusted towards the loan account and NOC of the loan shall be issued. If any amount remains after adjustment then the same shall be refunded to the Complainant. In addition the direction is issued to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,500 as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month. If the amount is not paid within period of one month then the interest @ 12 per annum shall be payable.”

7.Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission being Appeal No. 1155/2009. After hearing on the application of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 was also made a party in the appeal before the State Commission. However, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum.

8.Hence, the present Revision Petition.

The notice was issued to both the Respondents, however, even after service none is present during the arguments today. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was heard.

9.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner has never repossessed the vehicle as the same was taken forcibly by the Complainant from the premises of the Respondent No. 2 and therefore there is no question of selling the vehicle and adjusting the loan amount due on the Complainant from the sale proceeds and to refund the remaining amount, if any. He further stated that in the written statement, it is clearly stated that the Complainant forcibly took away the vehicle from the premises of the Respondent No. 2. He further stated that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has relied on all the documents submitted by the Petitioner.

10.I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and examined the record.

11.First of all, it is seen that both the Fora below have given concurrent findings and facts cannot be reassessed in the Revision Petition by this Commission as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inLourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors.v.H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Others,III (2016) CPJ 27 (SC)=VI (2016) SLT 86=(2016) 8 SCC 286, wherein, the following has been held:

“23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

Even on merits, it is seen that the State Commission observed as under:

“Non-Applicants stated that the complainant has forcibly taken the vehicle on 15.3.2008, the fact has been informed to them by V.D. Motors. But V.D. Motors has not taken any action, if any one takes the vehicle by force then the instance comes within definition of Theft and Dacoity. If the situation was such then the matter ought to have been reported to police by V.D. Motors on 15.3.2008, why the action has not been taken, no explanation has been given. Opposite Parties have been informed about the incidentvideletter dated 17.3.2008, but they also have not taken any action with Police. In this regard best evidence would have been any person/employee from V.D. Motors. But no such evidence/affidavit has been produced before the District Forum. Therefore it cannot be said that complainant has forcibly taken vehicle from V.D. Motors. Opposite parties in their Notice dated 14.3.2008 has clearly stated that if Rs. 1,39,730 is not deposited then the vehicle shall be sold. Then instead of selling the vehicle the Opposite Party has fabricated story that the complainant has forcibly taken the vehicle. Therefore the opposite parties in not selling the vehicle, not adjusting the sale proceeds to the loan outstanding and in not issuing the NOC to the complainant had committed deficiency in service.”

12.From the above observations of the State Commission, it is clear that the Petitioner is trying to not to sell the vehicle in spite of the clear order of the District Forum. The story of the Petitioner is difficult to believe as no FIR has been lodged by the Respondent No. 2 in the matter. If a vehicle is taken away by force by somebody from the premises of a company, the company would definitely lodge a FIR. In the present case, no such FIR has been filed. It is argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that FIR was to be lodged by the Respondent No. 2 and not by the Petitioner. As the Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioner

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of the alleged incident of taking away the vehicle by force by the Complainant even then the Petitioner neither lodged the FIR themselves as the vehicle was retained by the Respondent No. 2 on the advice of the Petitioner nor the Petitioner advised the Respondent No. 2 to lodge the FIR. The FIR would have been the best proof of the allegation of the Petitioner. Thus, even on merits, I find that no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed by the State Commission in the impugned order which calls for any interference from this Commission. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.