M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2416 OF 2009

 (Arising out of order dated 24.11.2009 passed in C.C.No.211/2009 by District Commission, Sagar)

MUKESH KUMAR SONI.                                                                                      …          APPELLANT

            Versus

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICE

LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER.                                                                         …         RESPONDENT.

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                                      O R D E R

23.04.2024

            Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Ms. Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                   This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.211/2009 whereby the complaint filed by him has been partly allowed.

2.               The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant/appellant are that he after getting financial assistance from the opposite party/respondent finance company purchased a Mahindra Max Turbo bearing registration number MP-15 BA-0132 from Star Automobiles, 

-2-

Sagar on 12.01.2006 for a sum of Rs.4,77,582/-. He took finance from the opposite party-finance company for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- and the complainant made down payment of Rs.1,15,282/- which was to be repaid in installments of Rs.10,500/-. It is submitted by the complainant the complainant was paying the installments regularly and till 22.01.2009 he paid Rs.1,15,282/- towards down payment and in installments Rs.3,50,420/- totaling Rs.4,65,602/-. It is alleged that without giving any notice, the finance company seized the subject vehicle on 19.02.2009 in his absence from his driver and later sold it to someone for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission.

3.                The opposite parties/respondents by filing reply resisted the complaint stating that the complainant/appellant had obtained loan to purchase a subject vehicle. It is stated that the financed amount was to repaid in installments of Rs.10,500/- but the complainant made default in payment of loan installments as he engaged his vehicle on hire and reward in Bina Refinery. The complainant failed to deposit the loan installments in time and became defaulter. In fact, loan recall notices dated 20.02.2009 and 25.03.2009 by registered post were sent to the complainant and when

-3-

he failed to deposit the outstanding dues, after following the procedure seized the subject vehicle. There has been no deficiency in service on part of opposite parties. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission after considering the evidence and all aspects of the matter partly allowed the complainant. The complainant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission failed to consider the complaint and documents properly. He argued that the District Commission has not considered this important aspect that as per law and terms of agreement before seizing the vehicle, the opposite party ought to have been given legal notice to the complainant. He argued that when there was deficiency in service on part of the finance company, the District Commission ought to have awarded the relief as sought or to return the amount deposited with interest and by not doing this, the District Commission has committed grave error. He argued that the District Commission did