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.
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....
:(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.
The court affirmed that the vehicle was legally repossessed due to the complainant's failure to repay the loan, with no proven defects in the vehicle.
The requirement of substantial evidence to support claims of manufacturing defects in consumer protection cases is essential for claims to be upheld.
(1) Evidence - The District Forum in pursuance of its mandate under Section 13 was required to have the necessary evidence produced before it prior to drawing an adverse inference.(2) Order to replac....
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
