State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahindra & Mahindra vs Prem Chand on 8 October, 2007
H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
----
REVISION PETITION NO.60/2007.
DATE OF DECISION:
8.10.2007.
In the matter of:
Branch Manager,Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service
Limited, Kachi Ghati,
Tara Devi, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh through
Shri Vivek Guleria,
son of Shri B.S. Guleria, General Power of Attorney of M/S
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Kachi Ghati, Tara Devi,
Shimla, District Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh.
. Petitioner.
Versus
Prem Chand son of late Shri Tonku Ram,
Resident of Prabhat Cottage, New Shimla, Shimla District,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honble
Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.
Honble
Mrs Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether
approved for reporting?
For the
Petitioner: Mr. D.N. Sharma,
Advocate, vice Counsel.
with
Mr. Vivek Guleria, Manager (Law) of the Petitioner
Company.
For the
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh
Dhaulta,Advocate.
Respondent
is also present in person
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
Justice Arun Kumar Goel ( Retd.), President (Oral).
1. A sum of Rs.30,000/- in terms of the our order dated 4.10.2007 has been paid to Shri Guleria in cash before us and receipt has been issued to the respondent in that behalf. The vehicle has been handed over to the respondent today. While accepting the vehicle, it was pointed out on behalf of the respondent that one tarpaulin, one blanket, two ropes and a Jack Rod are missing.
Further according to him, two tyres which were there in the vehicle at the time of its taking over by the petitioner are also replaced. Besides this, Battery has been replaced. Regarding the tarpaulin, blanket, two ropes as well as Jack Road, these have been agreed to be handed over to the respondent by Shri Guleria.
Regarding tyres, it was stated by him that while taking the vehicle to its stockyard at Mandi, one of the tyres got burst which has been replaced with another tyre. onble MHon
2. We are sorry to observe that at the time of taking over the vehicle, neither the petitioner has mentioned the condition of the tyres nor the respondent insisted to atleast note down the tyre Nos. as well as their condition. Though it is admitted case of the respondent that the tyres were retreaded, we say nothing more in this behalf and leave this question to be determined by the District Forum below in pending complaint between the parties. The order passed by the District Forum below on 18.9.2007 is modified to the extent that the vehicle has been ordered to be delivered subject to payment of Rs.30,000/-. This amount as already noted, has been paid to the petitioner against receipt, and will be adjusted in the loan account of the respondent. All questions are left open to be determined in Complaint No.316/2007. Parties are directed to appear on the date already fixed i.e. 22.11.2007, before which date office will send record to the District Forum below. We have not dealt with the merits of the case and the District Forum shall dispose of the complaint in accordance with law.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this revision shall stand vacated forthwith.
Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
Shimla, October 8, 2007.
( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President.
( Saroj Sharma )
/BS/ Member.