State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Arjun Kr. Singh Alias Arjun Singh vs Manager- Customer Care, Mahindra ... on 8 January, 2020
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/54/2019 ( Date of Filing : 22 Jan 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/12/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/289/2018 of District Kolkata-II(Central)) 1. Sri Arjun Kr. Singh alias Arjun Singh S/o Sri Ram Nagina Singh, 7L/1B, Beliaghata Road, Kolkata - 700 015, P.O. - Tangra, P.S. - Narkeldanga. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Manager- Customer Care, Mahindra Finance 7, Kyd Street, 4th Floor, Kolkata - 700 016, P.S. - Park Street. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Olivia Mukherjee, Ms. Paromita Adhikary, Advocate For the Respondent: Dated : 08 Jan 2020 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Disputing the dismissal of his complaint case bearing no. CC/289/2018 by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II (Central) vide its Order dated 27-12-2018, this Appeal is preferred for reversal of the said decision.
The Appellant initiated the instant complaint case holding the Respondent responsible for non-receipt of Smart Card in respect of the car that he purchased with the financial assistance rendered by the Respondent.
Parties were heard through their respective Ld. Advocates and documents on record gone through carefully.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant alleged that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was handed over to the representative of the Respondent in the month of April, 2017 for arranging the Smart Card in respect of his car. However, despite repeated perseverance of the matter with the Respondent, it did not take any positive step to arrange the same resulting which, he could not ply the vehicle on road even for a day.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, on the other hand, vehemently denied receiving any money from the Appellant for arranging Smart Card in respect of the car in question and put him to strict proof thereof. He alleged that, with a clear intention of avoiding payment of EMIs, the Respondent filed the complaint case.
It is a fact that the Appellant has not been able to produce any money receipt in support of his contention of payment of Rs. 15,000/- to one Mr. Sandip, stated to be the representative of Respondent.
That said, from the copy of the letter dated 07-11-2017, it appears that the Appellant did raise the issue with the Respondent seeking its intervention so as to impress upon its representatives, namely, said Sandip (98310-73430) and another Farooq to do the needful. From the photocopy of postal receipt it transpires that the said letter was posted on the very same day. Another letter was posted by the Appellant in this regard on 04-04-2018. Lastly, on receipt of demand notice dated 07-06-2018 from the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent, due reply was given by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant on 25-06-2018 where too the grievance of the Appellant was articulated/reiterated. As we find, no rebuttal was made from the end of the Respondent to the repeated complaints of the Appellant.
It is open to question - if false allegation is made by anyone against a company, whether the company would ever swallow the bitter pill silently. It is naïve to believe that if there was no iota of truth into the allegation of the Appellant, strong disclaimer would be made from the side of the Respondents.
True, it is beyond the terms of reference of any financial institution to arrange Smart Card in respect of cars of loan takers. However, it is an open secret that, with the tacit approval of financial companies, employers of such companies more often than not develops unholy nexus/rapport with agents of different Insurance Companies and many other Institutions. While those employees, taking undue advantage of their official position influence/coerce hapless loan takers to take unsolicited services against their wish, on numerous occasions helpless consumers lands at the hands of unscrupulous persons. In fact, this is not the one off case of its kind. It is indeed unfortunate that, this Commission has come across several such instances.
If the Appellant indeed had any ill-intention, one would appreciate, he would stop paying EMIs in the month of November, 2017 itself, instead of paying it for another 4 months before taking the drastic step of paying EMIs.
Therefore, merely on account of Appellant's failure to furnish cogent documentary proof in support of his contention regarding payment of money to Mr. Sandip for arranging the Smart Card, we cannot shrug off his allegation at the very threshold. If the circumstantial evidence is anything to go by, there seem reasonable grounds to hold that the Appellant did fall prey to the sinister design of representatives of the Respondent.
Respondent has not put forth any document regarding the steps taken by it on receipt of the complaint letters of the Appellant. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, it cannot avoid compensating the loss suffered by the Appellant on account of payment of insurance premium, garage rent, mental pain and agony etc. At the same time, to be fair to the Respondent, we cannot endorse the arbitrary decision of the Appellant to stop payment of EMIs. Law does not permit one to take the law into one's hands. In case of any grievance, the Appellant was free to take remedial legal recourse. We cannot endorse his decision to stop paying due EMIs midway. Accordingly, we refrain from debarring the Respondent from taking appropriate legal steps against the Appellant for recovery of its due.
Considering all aspects, we allow the Appeal in part. Respondent shall refund the sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the Appellant. Further, we hold it liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the Appellant and another sum of Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost. In case the aforesaid decreetal sum is not paid within 40 days from this day, Appellant shall be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law in which case Respondent shall have to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the decreetal sum for the entire period of default.
The impugned order, consequent thereof, is hereby set aside. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER