Back
INDER JIT SINGH
Sher Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
The present Revision Petitions (RP) have been filed under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 18.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 405 of 2015 in which order dated 19.05.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Forum VI, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.799 of 2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for:—
a. Enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the State Commission vide order dated 18.01.2019 in RP No. 895 of 2019
b. Setting aside the order dated 18.01.2019 of the State Commission in RP No. 1461 of 2019
2. In RP No. 1416 of 2019, the Revision Petitioner was Appellant before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum. In RP No. 895 of 2019, the Petitioner herein was the Appellant before the State Commission. For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 10.02.2020. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 18.01.2024 (Complainant) and 09.
Karnataka Bank, Rep. by its General Manager VS Nagaraj T. S. - Consumer (2022): Cited as support by Appellant ("relied on a decision reported in IV (2020) CPJ 191 (NC)"); indicates positive treatment as persuasive authority.
HDFC Bank Limited VS Syed Mushir Abbas - Consumer (2024): Relied upon by counsel ("He relied on Manager ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakar Kaur & Ors."); shows positive reliance.
Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited VS N. Gopal S/o. Ramachandra Prasad - Consumer (2024): Relied upon by opposite party counsel ("relied upon the case between managing director, Orix Auto v/s Sri Jagmander Singh"); positive citation.
Seema Jeetendra Longani VS Citicorp Finance India Ltd. - Consumer (2024): Cited by this court ("This Court vide its judgment in Trilok Singh & Ors. vs. ... Saraf, 1999 (1) SCC 119"); suggests followed or applied positively.
Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. (Formerly Equitas Finance Ltd. ) VS Buta Singh - Consumer (2024): Cited alongside other cases ("Ltd. Vs. ... Shri Jamander Singh and Anr. (2006) 2 SCC 598"); appears in list of relied-upon precedents, indicating positive treatment.
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. VS Beema Rao - Consumer (2024): States a legal principle ("Deficiency in Service – Adjustment of loan amount towards EMI by auction sale of vehicle does not amount to deficiency in service."); no treatment indicators; appears as standalone holding, likely cited positively elsewhere.
Sunita Devi VS Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2024): States a legal principle ("Repossession of Vehicle – Default in payment of EMIs – No deficiency in service."); no treatment indicators; descriptive holding.
Angeline Mohana Johnson VS Manager, State Bank of India - Consumer (2025): Contains opinion criticizing bank's contention ("too far-fetched for the respondent bank to contend"); no explicit treatment of other cases, but uses persuasive reasoning; categorized here as it reflects a substantive ruling.
T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Thr. LRs. VS N. Madhava Rao - 2019 3 Supreme 606: States principle on concurrent findings and co-sharer possession ("Concurrent finding of facts... cannot be adverse"); no treatment indicators; descriptive.
Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel VS H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. - 2016 6 Supreme 207: States definitions and jurisdictional limits ("When goods are purchased for end use... acted illegally or with material irregularity."); no treatment indicators; substantive holding.
Rajiv Shukla VS Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. - 2022 7 Supreme 1082: States principles on revisional jurisdiction and unfair trade practice ("Revisional Jurisdiction – Powers... unfair trade practice."); no treatment indicators; descriptive.
Revisional Jurisdiction – In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by Forum & SC, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
Deficiency in service occurs when repossession is conducted unlawfully without proper notice, violating consumer protection laws.
Repossession – Merely because the OP-1 Bank had repossessed the vehicle due to repeated defaults of EMIs without giving due notice to the Complainant, the Complainant is not absolved of his liability....
Compensation must align proportionately with the actual damages incurred, and excessive punitive measures without rational basis contravene principles of justice.
:(1) Unfair Trade Practice – Inviting bids based on false information regarding the legal status of the vehicle constitutes a clear Unfair Trade Practice.(2) Repossessed Asset Auctions – Financial in....
Vehicle’s possession taken by financer forcibly and in absence of any prior notice to the Respondent, it comes under unfair trade practice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
