NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4512/2009

JOUHAR LAL KOSARIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAGMA SHRACHI FINANCE LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ARVIND GUPTA

22 Jan 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 10 Dec 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4512/2009
(Against the Order dated 22/10/2009 in Appeal No. 428/2008 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. JOUHAR LAL KOSARIYAR/o VIllage - Kugda, Post - UrlaDurgC.G. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. MAGMA SHRACHI FINANCE LTD. & ORS.Divisional Office, Opposite Rajkumar College, G.E. RoadRaipurC.G.2. MAGMA SHRACHI FINANCE LIMITED. REDG. OFFICE; MAGMA HOUSE24, Park StreetKolkata - 16(W.B.)3. MAGMA SHRACHI FINACE LIMITED, BRANCH - SUPELA CHOWKBhillaiDurg(C.G.)4. MANGALAM MOTORS COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DEALERTata Motors Limited Corporation, G.E. Road, TatibandhRaipur(C.G.) ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. ARVIND GUPTA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 22 Jan 2010
ORDER

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.

          Petitioner/complainant purchased Tata 207 Delivery Van through Respondent No.1 which was financed by opposite parties No.2-4 to the tune of Rs.3,04,725/-.  The petitioner did not pay all the installments and opposite parties No.2-4 repossessed the vehicle.  Prior to repossessing the vehicle, respondents had issued notice to the petitioner to pay the installments which he failed to do.  only thereafter the vehicle was repossessed.  Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

 

-2-

          The District Forum recorded a finding that the petitioner had not paid all the installments as and when they fell due and, therefore, there was no deficiency on part of opposite parties No.2-4 in repossessing the vehicle; that opposite parties 2-4 had the legal right to repossess the vehicle.  However, while doing so the District Forum directed the opposite parties not to recover the amount due as the vehicle had already been sold by them for a sum of Rs.2 Lacs.

          Opposite parties No2-4 filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed.    

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER