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

M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. (Formerly Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd), New Delhi v/s Sachin Vitthalrao Wankhede

    Revision Petition No. 4458 of 2014

    Decided On, 03 February 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Satish Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nicholas Choudhary, Advocate.

Judgment Text

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist finance co. and the respondent complainant, and perused the material on record.

2. The dispute relates to the finance co. wrongly obtaining Rs. 77,454/- from the complainant, first Rs. 32,454/- by threatening to forcibly re-possess his vehicle and then Rs. 45,000/- by forcibly re-possessing his vehicle and releasing it only after he paid the said Rs. 45,000/-.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 29.12.2007 appraised the evidence and partly allowed the complaint, determining that the said Rs.32,454/- + Rs. 45,000/- = Rs. 77,454/- were wrongly obtained under threat of / by forcible re-possession of the subject vehicle.

The District Forum directed the finance co. to refund the said amount of Rs. 77,454/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum form the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 09.05.2007 along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

4. In appeal the State Commission again appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 28.03.2014 dismissed the appeal, holding that “In view of the aforesaid facts and observations we are very much convinced that opponent finance company has recovered excess amount of Rs. 77,454/- as claimed by complainant and which is rightly directed by District Consumer Forum to refund the same with interest by way of its impugned judgment and order. Appeal is being devoid of any merits requires to be dismissed.”.

5. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 28.03.2014 of the State Commission.

6. Both the fora below have arrived at concurrent findings.

It is well evinced that the finance co., under threat of / by forcible re-possession of the subject vehicle wrongly obtained Rs. 32,454/- and Rs. 45,000/- (i.e. total Rs. 77,454/-) from the complainant, after the complainant had repaid the loan with interest as admissible.

7. The impugned Order dated 28.03.2014 of the State Commission is well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission has concurred with the District Forum. No crucial or palpable misappreciation of evidence is visible, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. On the face of it, no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible, as may call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b).

8. The award made by the District Forum, and as upheld and affirmed by the State Commission, appears just and equitable.

9. The Act 1986 is for “better protection of the interests of consumers”, its Statement of Objects and Reasons says of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”.

10. The complaint case was filed before the District Forum in 2007, the District Forum decided the case in 2007, the finance co. appealed before the State Commission in 2008, the State Commission decided the appeal in 2014, the finance co. filed the instant revision petition before this Commission in 2014, we are now in 2020.

11. This is a case of a finance co., with wherewithal, on the one side, and an ordinary common ‘consumer’, without wherewithal, on the other side. As is well-evinced, the finance co. highhandedly and arbitrarily obtained Rs. 77,454/- from the complainant under threat of / by forcible re-possession, after the complainant had duly repaid his loan with interest as due. After concurrent findings on facts being returned by the two fora below, the finance co. agitated before the third forum, i.e. this Commission, for a (protracted) period of about 6 years, where, too, its case fails miserably.

12. All this is not viewed favourably.

13. The revision petition, being patently misconceived and totally bereft of merit, is dismissed, with stern advice of caution to the finance co. through its chief executive by imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the finance co. in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum within four weeks from today.

14. The State Commission’s impugned Order is confirmed. The award made by the District Forum, and as upheld and affirmed by the State Commission, is sustained. The finance co. through its chief executive shall ensure compliance without further delay.

15. The finance co. through its chief executive shall also pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation in the revisional proceedings before this Commission within four weeks from today.

16. The amount deposited by the finance co. with the District Forum in compliance of this Commission’s Order 24.06.2015 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be utilized by the Distri

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ct Forum, as per the due procedure, towards satisfaction of its award and of the cost imposed herein (refer paras 13, 14 and 15 above). 17. Needless to add, in case of failure or omission in compliance, the District Forum shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ under section 25(3) and for ‘penalties’ under section 27 of the Act 1986, as per the law. 18. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the chief executive of the finance co. within three days from today. ‘Dasti’, in addition.