Back
B.H.Gadhavi
A-12-3459
Page 1 of 5
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-2
APPEAL NO. 3459 of 2012
1. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd.,
2. Branch Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd.,
Both At:
A-4, Parishram Park,
Midhonla Cross Road,
Dhuliya Road, Bardoli,
Dist: Surat.
…Appellants
(Ori. Opponent.)
Vs.
Dhansukhbhai Bodaliyabhai Gamit,
Khanjar, Tal: Songadh,
Dist: Tapi
...Respondent
(Ori. Complainant)
Appearance: Ld. Advocate Mr. V.M.Pancholi
For the appellants
Ld. Advocate Mr. S.G.Shah
For the Respondent
Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta Judicial Member
Order by Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order dated 28.09.2012 passed by
the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat
in Complaint Case No.823 of 2009.
2. The appellant has preferred instant appeal on
the grounds that the impugned order is
arbitrary, perverse and is bad in law. The parties
Details
DD
MM
YY
Date of Judgment
07 10
2021
Date of filling
02 11
2012
Duration
05 11
08
B.H.Gadhavi
A-12-3459
Page 2 of 5
will be preferred to their original nomenclature
for the sake of the convenience.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
complainant
has
purchased
one
Bollero
GXL2WD car form the original respondents,
respondent have financed the loan amount of Rs.
4,49,000/-. As the down payment Rs. 99,020/-
was paid for the installment of automobiles. And
monthly installment of Rs. 10,663/- compliant
has deposited, respondent has alleged that he
has paid 21 instalments regularly out of the 60
installments,
and
deposited
amount
of
Rs.3,33,303/- from the date of 01.01.1998 to
31.04.2008
complainant
did
not
paid
installment
due
to
economical
crisis
on
01.05.2008 and respondent seized the vehicle
from the possession of the complainant’s
brother’s wife and it was force full repossession
of the vehicle by respondent and thereby the
complainant and also signed taken on the letter
which was written in English, that’s why geeta
ben the brother’s wife was not known English
and thereby what type of document was carried
out was not known by Geetaben and ultimately
after
that
complainant
approached
the
respondent also ready to pay Rs. 2,65,000/-
however respondent did not take the money as
the vehicle was sold out so far that the complaint
filed before the Songardh police station.
4. ultimately respondent has sent notice on
10.10.2008 for demanding Rs.1,47,505/- the
B.H.Gadhavi
A-12-3459
Page 3 of 5
said action of the respondent is illegal one
ultimately Ld. Trial Forum come to conclusion to
award Rs. 3,33,323/- with 9% interest.
5. Being aggrieved with this order of the Ld. Trial
forum the present appeal is preferred by the
appellant.
6. Heard Ld. Advocate for the appellant Mr.
V.M.Pancholi and Mr. S. C.Shah for the original
complainant.
7. Ld. Advocate Mr. Pancholi has submitted before
me that there is agreement between the
complainant and the finance company thereby
under the agreement appellant are entitle for the
payment of EMI. Thereby there is no need to
issue any notice to the complainant thereby
repossession of the vehicle of the present case
are just fair and according to law.
8. Ld. Advocate Mr. Shah has submitted before me
that there is privity of contract with the
complainant and the appellant is there, further
appellant seized the vehicle from the possession
of the third person that action is illegal one and
does not according to the agreement with the
parties thereby ld. Trial Forum has taken the just
fair and reasonable decision.
9. Today on hearing of the both the sides parties I
am of the opinion that it is true that complainant
fails to pay EMI so on the regularly and there was
a default on the side of the complainant and
B.H.Gadhavi
A-12-3459
Page 4 of 5
thereby according to Ld. Advocate Mr. Pancholi
submitte
