State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services ... vs Dhansukhbhai Bodaliyabhai Gamit on 7 October, 2021
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 07 10 2021
Date of filling 02 11 2012
Duration 05 11 08
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 B.H.Gadhavi A-12-3459 Page 1 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 4 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 2 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 3 of 5 thereby according to Ld. Advocate Mr. Pancholi submitted that repossession of the vehicle after due notice was obtained from the complainant and it was a conscious repossession from the complainant thereby repossession is duly obtained .
10. According to my view considering this Pecuniary facts before me here actual possession of the vehicle was seized from the third person who is not answerable here to any case as pleaded by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant and that's why I am of the opinion that vehicle was in question was seized and default of the payment of the EMI is true one and that's why the amount was allowed by the Ld. Trial Forum is not proper because of when appellant was entitled to repossession of the vehicle no question to re pay any amount from the out-come of the selling of the vehicle.
11. Thereby I am of the opinion to allow lum- sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the interest of justice as the illegal repossession from the brother's wife is not proper procedure and for that 1 lakhs compensation for the complainant is just and fair thereby I pass following order.
FINAL ORDER
i) Appeal No. 3459 of 2012 is partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in Complaint Case No.823 of 2009 is modified as under.
B.H.Gadhavi A-12-3459 Page 4 of 5iii) Hereby Appellant Company is directed to pay lum- sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the rest of the order of the Ld. trial forum Surat is quashed and set aside.
iv) The office is hereby ordered to pay deposited amount with accrued interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.
v) No order as to cost.
vi) Copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of charge.
vii) Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to the parties. Registry is directed to send a copy this judgment to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat through E-mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.
Pronounced in the open court on 7th October, 2021.
(M.J.Mehta) Judicial Member B.H.Gadhavi A-12-3459 Page 5 of 5