Back
BINOY KUMAR
Seema Jeetendra Longani – Appellant
Versus
Citicorp Finance India Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
The present Revision Petition Nos.4133 and 4134 of 2014 are filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) by Mrs.Seema Jeetendra Longani (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner/ Complainant) against M/s Citicorp Finance India Ltd. and M/s Sterling Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No. 1/ Finance Company and Respondent No. 2 respectively) challenging the Impugned Order dated 22.08.2014 of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in FA No.408 of 2009 and FA No.457 of 2009. FA No.408 of 2009 filed by the Complainant was disallowed whereas FA No.457 of 2009 filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed. Further, the State Commission had dismissed the Order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in CC/32/2009.
2. Since the facts and question of law involved in both the Petitions are similar, therefore, these two Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No.4133 of 2014 is treated as the lead case.
3. Brief facts of the case
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....
Proper notice and procedures must be followed in vehicle seizure to avoid unfair trade practices under consumer protection laws.
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.
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.
Vehicle’s possession taken by financer forcibly and in absence of any prior notice to the Respondent, it comes under unfair trade practice.
“Once the matter had been decided in an arbitration, the complaint in the Consumer Forum held not maintainable.”
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
