STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/RBT/A/3/2019 Ravindra Sadhu Wankhede PRESENT ADDRESS - age 50 yrs occu Driver r/o ner Primary School Big Wadgaon tq Yavatmal,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Rajlaxmi Multistate Credit Cooperative Society Ltd Yavatmal through its manager PRESENT ADDRESS - main branch Sankatmochan rd Yavatmal,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Adv R D Sontakke (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NONE DATED: 29/09/2025

ORDER

PER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE, MEMBER

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/original complainant, Ravindra Sadhu Wankhede, since deceased, through his LRs.1. Smt.Sangita Ravindra Wankhede 2. Prem Ravindra Wankhede and 3. Ku.Shweta Ravindra Wankhede , being aggrieved by the order passed on 03/12/2018 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/161/2015 (for short as “impugned order”) by the learnedDistrict Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yavatmal(for short as “learned District Forum”), vide Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The parties of the appealare hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better appreciation.

3. The case of the complainant that emerges from the statement made in the complaint is that the complainant purchased a Mahindra Xylo vehicle having Chassis No.MA1YA2JAKA2M28665, Engine No.JAA4M18131 with RTO registration No.MH-29-R-5977from the opposite party in January 2011 for the maintenance of his family. To finance the purchase, the complainant took a loan of Rs.5,90,772/- from the opposite party and, as a condition, bought shares of Rs.50,000/- while signing certain documents required by the opposite party. After repaying the loan amount with interest, the opposite party issued a no-dues certificate. However, in January 2015, the opposite party claimed an outstanding balance of Rs.1,12,704/-, and did not settle the account when requested. On 05/02/2015, employees of the opposite party forcibly took the vehicle from the complainant’s house by threatening him and later demanded Rs.2,87,000/- for its return. The opposite party then claimed the vehicle’s value was Rs.3,71,000/- and promised to return the remaining amount after selling it, but refused to return the vehicle. The complainant paid Rs.2,87,000/- on 06/05/2015 and received a receipt, yet the vehicle was never returned and was eventually sold. The complainant also demanded the Rs.50,000/- share amount, which was not returned. So also, notices served on 23/06/2015 were ignored causing financial hardship. The complainant seeks the return of the vehicle, Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.50,000/- for suffering, and Rs.10,000/- as costs.

4. The Opposite Party resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and contended that the Opposite Party had provided a loan of Rs.5,90,000/- to the complainant, which the complainant agreed to repay in five years in monthly installments of Rs.13,698/-, as per the signed loan agreement, which was binding on both parties. The complainant purchased a Mahindra Xylo vehicleusing the loan, with the Opposite Party encumbered on the R.C. book. The complainant also purchased shares worth Rs.1,000/- on 20/12/2010 as Share No.14054 and Rs.53,000/- on 30/12/2010 as Share No.14266. The complainant made irregular repayments and accumulated arrears until 08/06/2014. Admitting his inability to repay, the complainant requested the Opposite Party’s help to sell the vehicle. The Opposite Party facilitated the sale and Shri Jaisingh Rachpalsingh Bajalgoti purchased the vehicle for Rs.3,71,000/-. The complainant received Rs.20,000/- in cash on 29/04/2015 and executed a notarized transfer agreement, handing over the vehicle on 30/04/2015. Shri Bajalgoti deposited Rs.2,87,000/- in the Opposite Party’s account on 06/05/2015, clearing the loan and the remaining amount