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) 3452

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SMT. HAKKI BAI – Appellant
Versus
ATAL TRIPATHI MAHINDRA FIN. – Respondent
SC/23/FA/390/2016



Petitioner Advocates:SH.AJAY DUBEY ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MADHYA PRADESH

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/FA/390/2016

SMT. HAKKI BAI

PRESENT ADDRESS - GRAM MAKRARA, TEH. KOLARAS, SHIVPURI,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

ATAL TRIPATHI MAHINDRA FIN.

PRESENT ADDRESS - HAJI SUNNU MARKET, ASHA CLINIC, A.B.RAOD, SHIVPURI,MADHYA

PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT

HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

SH.AJAY DUBEY (Advocate)

DATED: 05/03/2026

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

FIRST APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 25.01.2016 passed in C.C.No.507/2011 by District Commission, Shivpuri)

SMT. HAKKI BAI,

W/O SHRI RAM SINGH VERMA,

R/O VILLAGE-MAKRARA, TEHSIL-KOLARAS,

DISTRICT-SHIVPURI (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

##PAGE2##

1. MANAGER, ATAL TRIPATHI MAHINDRA FINANCE,

HAJI SANNU MARKET, OPP.AASH CLINIC,

A.B.ROAD, SHIVPURI (M.P.)

2. CUSTOMER MANAGER, PANKAJ MISHRA,

MAHINDRA FINANCE, HAJI SANNU MARKET,

OPPOSITE AASH CLINIC, A.B.ROAD, SHIVPURI (M.P.)

3. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.

SECOND FLOOR, SADHANA HOUSE,

BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWER, WORLI, MUMBAI

THROUGH MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES,

HAJI SANNU MARKET, OPP.AASH CLINIC,

A.B.ROAD, SHIVPURI (M.P.) ... RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Akash Patel, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2.

None for the respondent no.3.

O R D E R

(Passed On 05.03.2026)

##PAGE3##

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated

25.01.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shivpuri

(for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.507/2011 whereby the complaint filed by her

has been dismissed.

-2-

2. Facts of the case in short are that the complainant after obtaining financial

assistance from the opposite party-finance company had purchased a Maruti Alto car

bearing registration number MP-33 C-0976 of which 15 quarterly installments were

regularly paid to the opposite party-finance company till 30.06.2011. However, since

her father-in-law suffered from cancer and she spent on his treatment therefore, she

could not deposit one overdue installment. On 28.01.2011 when she was returning with

her family members after attending a marriage from Gwalior to Makrara, near

Shaktipuram Khuda Old Railway Station, the employees of the opposite parties

repossessed the subject vehicle without any intimation. The suitcase containing her

valuables such as ornaments worth Rs.2 lakh, and clothes worth Rs.30,000/- were kept

in the vehicle. The complainant out of the financed amount of Rs.1,90,000/- had

already paid 10 quarterly installments out of 15 quarterly installments each of

Rs.15,840/- totaling Rs.1,58,760/- to the opposite party-finance company. '

3. It is further submitted by the complainant that when she was going to lodge

a police report she was telephonically informed that for non-payment of overdue

installment, the vehicle was repossessed by the employees of the finance company

##PAGE4##

and on depositing the overdue installment her vehicle with goods kept in vehicle will be

returned to her. On the very next day on 26.02.2011 when she approached the office of

the opposite party-finance company, the vehicle was not returned, therefore, she

lodged police

-3-

complaint. The complainant is again and again approaching the office of the finance

company to pay the remaining installments but the finance company neither deposited

the installments nor returned the vehicle with goods kept in it. The complainant

therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-finance company

filed the complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

4. The opposite party in its reply before the District Commission submitted

that since the complainant failed to deposit the due installments as per terms and

conditions of th

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