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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 604

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ANITA RAJKAMAL BANKAR – Appellant
Versus
M/S.JAIKA MOTORS LTD – Respondent
SC/CB2/27/A/21/2016



Petitioner Advocates:A.S.AMBATKAR ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/463/2015

BRANCH MANAGER JAIKA MOTORS LTD. .......Appellant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - MIDC GROWTH SEPT. PLOT NO. X-2X-3X-4 TA

Versus

ANITA RAJKAMAL BANKAR .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O JATPURA WARD, NEAR HANUMAN MAND

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/21/2016

ANITA RAJKAMAL BANKAR .......Appellant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O.JATPURA WARD,NEAR HANUMAN MAND

Versus

M/S.JAIKA MOTORS LTD .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - MIDC GROWTH SEPT,PLOT NO.X-2,X-3,X-4,TA

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER

FOR THE ADV. JOHARAPURKAR FOR THE APPELLANT /ORG. O.P. IN APPEAL NO.

APPELLANT: 463/2015 AND ADV. AGRAWAL FOR THE APPELLANT /ORG.

COMPLAINANT IN APPEAL NO. A/21/2016.

FOR THE ADV. ADHE IS PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENT / ORG. O.P. IN

RESPONDENT: APPEAL NO. A/21/2016 AND ADV. AGRAWAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

/ORG. COMPLAINANT IN APPEAL NO. A/463/2015

DATED: 28/01/2026

ORDER

COMMON ORDER

(Delivered on 28/01/2026)

PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON’BLE MEMBER.

1. The appeal (FA No.463/2015) is preferred by the original non-applicant,

Jaika Motors Ltd through Branch Manager, being aggrieved by the order

passed on 14/07/2015 in Misc.Application No.01/2013 (for short as “impugned

order”) by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

##PAGE2##

Chandrapur (for short as “learned District Forum”), vide Section 15 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So also, the appeal (FA No.21/2016) is preferred

by the original applicant, Anita Rajkamal Bankar, being aggrieved by the

impugned order of the learned District Forum.

The parties of the appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original

nomenclature as the applicant and the non-applicant respectively for better

appreciation.

2. The facts that emerge from the present matter are that the applicant has

filed the present application under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act,

1986 for recovery of the decretal amount. It is submitted that the applicant had

earlier filed Consumer Complaint No. 200/2009 against the non-applicant before

the learned District Forum and by order dated 06/05/2010, the non-applicant

was directed to return vehicle No.MH-34-M-6220 within 30 days, to pay

Rs.1,500/- per day as damages from 04/08/2009 till delivery of possession and to

pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental and physical agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs. It is

also submitted that the non-applicant failed to comply with the said order and

total recoverable amount comes to Rs.27,39,056/-. It is further submitted that out

of the said amount, the non-applicant has deposited only Rs.6,32,000/- and no

further payment was made to the applicant till 07/12/2012. It is asserted that a

balance amount of Rs.21,07,056/- remains due and payable. Therefore, the

applicant has filed the application against the non-applicant for seeking

recovery of the said amount under Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act,

1986.

3. The non-applicants were duly served upon the notice of application and

accordingly, they appeared in the matter. However, they failed to submit their

response and therefore, the learned District Forum had proceeded the

complaint without written version of the O.P. by order dated 30/10/2013.

4. After considering the material and documents filed on record and

hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum with its impugned order

dated 14/07/2015 in Misc.Application No.01/2013 ordered to calculate the

##PAGE3##

amount due and outstanding as per the order dated 06/05/2010 in Consumer

Complaint No.200/2009 and to forward the recovery file to the District Collector,

Chandrapur, directed to recover the outstanding amount by taking steps against

the movable and immovable properties of the non-applicant.

5. Being aggrieved by said impugned order, the original non-applicant

preferred the appeal (FA No.463/2015) on the grounds that the learned District

Forum failed to consider the letters dated 12/10/2012, 27/11/2012 and 14/12/2012

w

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