Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/96

Bhupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amarjit Singh

26 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 96 dated 10.03.2022.

                                                Date of decision: 26.12.2022. 

 

Bhupinder Singh aged 49 years son of Sh. Jagjit Singh, R/o. Flat No.13-S.F. Rajguru Nagar, Distt. Ludhiana. Pin 141012. Mobile No.98145-00665. Email:

                                                Versus

1. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited, SCO-1, First Floor, B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory. Pin 141006.
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited, Registered office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbmai-400001, India through its Chairman/Managing Director/Authorized Signatory. Pin 400001 email. www.MahindraFinance.com.                                                                                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2020.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Amarjit Singh Vassal, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Exparte.

 

 

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant took some loan facility from the opposite parties for purchasing vehicle Ford Figo bearing registration No.PB-10-HE-7989  Model 2019. At the time of sanctioning the said loan, the opposite parties got signed certain blank documents from the complainant and a loan agreement No.7396347 and 65 EMIs of Rs.14,450/- was settled as reducing loans. The complainant had been paying the EMIs to the opposite parties and major part of the loan has been paid to the opposite parties but on the basis of blank signed documents, the opposite parties wants to take illegal possession of the vehicle and they are interfering in peaceful plying of the vehicle which is against the grave violation of various instructions and notifications issued by Reserve Bank of India. After the complainant paid the loan amount in cash w.e.f. January 2021 to April 2021 and in the month of May 2021, the opposite parties rescheduled the loan amount of the complainant and amount of remaining EMIs was increased as Rs.18,127/-. The act of the opposite parties falls within the deficiency of service for which they are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is also an unfair trade practice. The complainant also got served the opposite parties with a registered legal notice dated 10.01.2022 calling upon the opposite parties to reconstruct/resettle the loan and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- but neither the opposite parties replied nor complied with the same. Hence this complaint whereby direction has been sought that the opposite parties be directed to reconstruct/resettle the loan and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 

2.                Notice was sent to the opposite parties through registered post on 25.03.2022. Neither the registered covers nor acknowledgements were received back and the same is presumed to be received by the opposite parties. None appeared on their behalf and the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.07.2022.        

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant also placed on record the documents Ex. C1 is legal notice, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the postal receipts, Ex. C4 is the statement of accounts consisting of seven pages, Ex. C5 is the Loan Repayment Schedule and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.          

5.                Perusal of statement of account (s) Ex. C4 shows that originally the loan was advanced on 31.08.2019 and was having 65 EMIs for finance amount of Rs.6,20,000/- plus charges. In the same document, the loan was restructured and the vehicle was refinanced on 01.06.2021 for a sum of Rs.5,95,183/- having 52 EMIs. So from the above said documents, it cannot be said that the loan was restructured or resettled without the consent of the complainant and there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  

6.                The only grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have restructured and rescheduled the original loan having 65 EMIs of Rs.14,450/- and now the amount of EMIs have been enhanced to Rs.18,127/- and number of EMIs to 52. The pleadings of the complainant are vague and sketchy and he has not specified the date on which the loan was raised and amount sanctioned thereof. Copy of loan agreement has also not been placed on record so that same could have been examined by the Commission in order to ascertain whether there was any term or clause which could have been invoked in restricting/rescheduling the loan amount.

7.                In this regard, reference can be made to SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held as under:-

’19.  The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

In the above cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has placed reliance on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. whereby it has been held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent.”

‘20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544) held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under:-

“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”

In the given facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by any cogent and convincing evidence.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Bhupinder Singh Vs Mahindra & Mahindra Finance                CC/22/96

 

Present:       Sh. Amarjit Singh Vassal, Advocate for complainant.

                   OPs exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.