DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.325/2015
Sh. Sudhir Singh
S/o Sh. Jai Singh
R/o A-2/1099, Madan Pur Khadar,
J.J. Colony, New Delhi- 110076
….Complainant
Versus
M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial
Services Ltd.
2nd Floor, Building No.-18, Community
Centre, Above Nirulas, East of Kailash,
New Delhi- 110065
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 01.12.2015
Date of Order : 28.06.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Shri U.K. Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award directing the M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to issue NOC to the Complainant: (ii) to refund of Rs.5,000/- as being excessive amount taken by OP; (iii) to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards hardship, harassment & mental agony; and to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges etc.
Brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The Complainant had got financed vehicle for the purchase of Maruti EECO Radio Taxi for Rs.2,90,000/- on 10.12.2011 from OP. The said loan was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.10,434/- each and maturity date of said loan was 09.12.2014. The business of Complainant came down around 2012. The OP sent the receiver alongwith policeman to take the possession of the vehicle for the recovery of the amount of Rs.2,61,809/- as on 23.11.2012 with out any notice to the Complainant. He also averred that the OP’s counsel’s notice dated 20.12.2012 was not received by the Complainant. Hence, he had no knowledge of pending arbitration proceedings for recovery of the said outstanding amount. Possession of said vehicle was taken 09.02.2013 by the OP’s representative. The said vehicle was only source of income and its possession by OP sent all of sudden shock in the family. As a result of which, his wife suffered miscarriage. The Complainant made the payment of Rs.53,742/- on 16.02.2013 and re-possessed the vehicle, however, amount of Rs.48,742/- was shown pending against him in the account. As such, he paid Rs.5,000/- more than what was due. Thereafter, he made EMIs till 16.06.2015. The outstanding amount in both statements of 09.07.2015 and 18.08.2015 was shown different. The AFC amount on 09.07.2015 showed sum of Rs.54,349/-, where as on 18.08.2015 total sum was Rs.32,609/-. The copy of statement of account for dated 09.07.2015 and 18.08.2015 is annexed as Annexures C & D respectively. Copy of receipt dated 16.02.2013 & handwritten payment details are shown at Annexures-A & B respectively.
OP, on the other hand, filed its reply inter-alia raising some preliminary objections. These objections appear to be of general nature except the mentioning of the default in EMIs by the Complainant and thereto passing of judgment under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and further allowing the possession of said vehicle to OP. The OP also relied upon the loan Agreement dated 12.12.2011. The same is annexed at Annexure - R/1. Copy of statement of account dated 01.07.2016 is also exhibited at Annexure - R/4.
Both the parties have filed evidence - in - affidavit Written Statement is on record so is rejoinder. The Complainant has filed copy of Written Argument. Whereas, OP has failed to advance the copy of Written Submission. This Commission ordered the OP to file the copy of Written Arguments, if any on 17.12.2021; on 30.03.2022, none appeared on behalf of OP nor any Written Argument was filed. Complainant in person was present. Case is pending since 2015, hence, it was considered appropriate to keep the case for order.
This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues raised herein. Arguments as advanced by the Complainant himself were also considered. It has been observed by the Commission that the issues raised by the Complainant, have not been rebutted by the OP in entirety. The OP has relied on the judgment under which the vehicle was possessed by the representative of OP. This issue is matter of record. The Complaint has paid the certain amount and repossessed the said vehicle. The Complainant contested that he was made to pay Rs.53,742/- on 16.02.2013 but the amount so deposited in this account was Rs.48,742/-. As such, Rs.5,000/- was taken from him which is not accounted for by the OP at any stage. The OP has not assailed the averments as made in its complaint and other documents. OP vide its reply had simply stated the facts which are on record and do not demolish the arguments of the Complainant. The Complainant had stated that as per statement of account as on 16.06.2015, the outstanding amount of Rs.10,214/- was paid as full and final payment. And further OP again shown the outstanding amount of Rs.32,609 + re-possession charges of Rs.10,000/- charges of parking of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.15,00/- as cheques return charges etc. totalling an amount of Rs.45,109/- is shown outstanding. The OP vide its reply had not accepted but also did not supply the statement of account indicating these outstanding against the complainant.
After having considered the facts & circumstances of this case, this Commission feels that there is some degree of deficiency in service for not providing the lucid copy of statement of account indicating various amount more particularly the amount of Rs.53,742/- was taken on re-possession of the vehicle however, only Rs.48,742/- was deposited in his account as alleged. In view of the above facts and circumstances in this case, the OP as directed to reconcile the account of OP and reflects the deposits as made by Complainant. This exercise should be completed within two months from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter, the NOC with respect of above mentioned vehicle be given within one months. The other request of the complainant as prayed are rejected.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
