Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Mr.Chinmay Gupte-Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.S.Pimpalkar-Advocate for the respondent.
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 06/9/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.361/2008 Dr.Neeraj Ramchandra Pimpalkar v/s. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘forum’ in short).
The original consumer complaint pertains to high handed act on the part of appellant/org.opponent (herein after referred as ‘Financial institution’) to take possession of Hyundai Santro car on 18/06/2008 from the Clinic of respondent /original complainant doctor. Dispute ultimately confined at the later stage by the complainant to compensation for non return of car musical system. Forum granted said relief to the complainant directing the Financial institution to pay compensation of `60,648/- for non return of system also awarded cost of `5000/- and given further direction if the compensation of `60,648/- is not paid within six weeks, then it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. Financial institution came in appeal against the said direction of paying the compensation of `60,648/- and further direction of charging the interest as aforesaid.
Admitted and heard forthwith with consent of both the parties.
It is pointed out by Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant- Financial institution that as per interim relief granted in favour of the complainant by order dated 22/12/2008, the Financial institution has already returned the Musical system including Musical player, Amplifier, two speakers and one Woofer to the complainant who acknowledged having received the same on 16/01/2009 which is at Exhibit ‘A’ of the original record. When we referred to the Roznama before the forum there is no proceeding of 16/01/2009. It is now submitted by Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant that this was their part of record, which is submitted at the time of appeal. Ld.counsel for the respondent/org.complainant also conceded to the fact having received the musical system along with accessories as per acknowledgement dated 16/01/2009. However, it is submitted on their behalf that there was no occasion for them to make such submission before the forum below about the compliance, since there was no occasion made available to them, but since fact of compliance and return of musical system is no more in dispute, we find that granting compensation for the same is not proper and, accordingly, with the concession made by both the parties we uphold the contention of the appellant /financial institution to the extent of modifying the impugned order to that extent only. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is partly allowed.
Impugned order directing to pay compensation of `60,648/- for non return of musical system and accessories and further direction to pay interest @ 9% p.a. if said amount is not paid within six weeks, both are set aside. Except for this modification rest of the impugned order stands confirmed.
With this order appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 22nd March, 2011.
