SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 16369

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BRANCH MANAGER INDUSIND BANK LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
FIROZ KUMAR BECK & ANR – Respondent
SC/22/A/23/143



Petitioner Advocates:SMT. NUPUR PAL ,Respondent Advocate: R-1 Shri Sharad Karke

AFR / NAFR CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR Date of Institution: 04/09/2023 Date of Final Hearing: 30/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024 APPEAL No.- FA/23/143 IN THE MATTER OF :

Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Limited, Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, Dist. SURGUJA (C.G.) … Appellant Through: Smt. Nupur Pal, Advocate Vs.

1. Firoz Kumar Beck S/o. Shri Telesphore Beck, R/o. House No.137, Ward No.07, Sarabkombo, Tah. Bagicha, Dist. JASHPUR (CG) … Respondent No.1.

Through: Shri Sharad Karke, Advocate

2. Manager, Tiwari Motors, Dealer: Mahindra Ltd. Truck & Bus Division, M.G. Road, Ambikapur, Dist. SURGUJA (C.G.) … Respondent No.2.

Through: Proceeded ex-parte.

CORAM: -

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER PRESENT: -

Smt. Nupur Pal, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Sharad Karke, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

The matter was proceeded ex-parte against the respondent No.2.

O RDE R

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act

2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) is directed against order dated 28.07.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambikapur (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in complaint case No.CC/2019/144 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 herein was partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 / appellant herein was directed to pay to the complainant / respondent No.1 the amount of wrongful loss suffered by him of Rs.6,40,850/- (Six Lacs Forty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint 24.12.2019 till the actual date of payment. The opposite party No.2/ appellant was also directed to issue NoC pertaining to the loan contract of vehicle of the complainant/ respondent No.1 and to reflect his CIBIL as debt free. Compensation for mental agony Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) were also directed to be paid. It was further directed that entire amount of award be deposited by the opposite party No.2/ appellant in the District Commission within 60 days to which the complainant/ respondent No.1 will be entitled to receive. If the opposite party No.2/ appellant fails to deposit the amount as above within 60 days, then interest @ 8% p.a. will be payable on the entire amount of award for the period beyond 60 days.

Aggrieved the opposite party No.2 Financier has preferred this appeal.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent No.1 on 29.03.2018 purchased as Mahindra Cosmo bus bearing registration No.CG-15-AB-0799 from the opposite party No.1/ respondent No.2 for Rs.16,56,400/- under hire purchase agreement with the opposite party No.2/ appellant. Rs.3,50,000/- were deposited as down payment and loan of Rs.14,00,000/- was obtained from the opposite party No.2/ appellant which was to be repaid in equal monthly installments of Rs.41,550/-. As per story narrated by the complainant/ respondent No.1 three installments were paid in time on 05.05.2018, 05.06.2018 and 05.07.2018 respectively. The fourth and fifth installments were paid with overdue charges on 27.09.2018, sixth installment with overdue charges on 05.01.2019. Due to breakdown of the bus of the complainant/ respondent No.1 in the month of October he could not pay further installments of the loan. On 05.01.2019 without giving intimation to the complainant/ respondent No.1 the bus was seized by the opposite party No.2/ appellant due to non-payment of installments. Vide letter dated 12.02.2019 the complainant/ respondent No.1 was asked by the opposite party No.2/

appellant to deposit Rs.16,15,081/-, on which he went to deposit the entire amount of Rs.16,15,081/-, but they refused to accept the same. On 05.04.2019 the complainant / respondent No.1 again visited the opposite party No.2/ appellant with the entire amount for depositing the same, where he was in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top