Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1047/2013

KIRAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI SC/ST/OBC/MISC./HUD. FIN. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Oct 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/1047/2013
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
 
1. KIRAN SINGH
R/O 285, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-88.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. DELHI SC/ST/OBC/MISC./HUD. FIN.
SEC-16, ROHINI, DELHI-85.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:14.10.2014

 

First Appeal- 1047/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 24.06. 2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 454/2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-V, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi)

Shri Karan Singh,

S/o Shri Mangat Ram,

R/o 285, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.

                                                                                            ….Appellant

 

Versus

Delhi SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Handicapped

Financial & Development Corporation,

Ambedakar Bhawan, Institutional Area,

Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

 

  •  

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

  1. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant despite waiting uptill 3.45p.m.

 

  1. Even on the last date of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

 

  1. Perusal of the record shows that the complaint filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 24.06.2013.  Appellant has alleged that we have taken a loan of Rs. 2,47,000/- from the respondent for purchase of Maruti Van and the loan amount was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments.  He has stated that there was default in repayment of loan.  However, the respondent had repossessed the financed vehicle and sold it away in an open auction.  The act of the respondent in repossessing the vehicle and selling it out was unjustified.

 

  1. The District Forum after pursuing the documents on record observed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  It was held that the vehicle was repossessed and sold as the complainant had failed to clear the outstanding dues.  It was further held that due procedure as prescribed under the agreement was followed.

 

  1. Since none had appeared for the appellant, the appeal stands dismissed for non-appearance.

 

  1. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.

 

  1. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to

 

 

 

 

 

the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.