Haryana

StateCommission

A/555/2015

SUBHASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

B.K.BAGRI

28 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.555 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution: 17.06.2015 and 01.07.2015.

                             Date of Decision: 28.07.2015

 

Subhash S/o Shri Shri Ram Chand, R/o village Asadpur, Tehsil & Distt. Rewari.

…..Appellant

                                      VERSUS

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. 1st Floor, 19 Brass Market, Rewari through Branch Manager Sanjay Kakar R/o 1^st Floor, 19 Brass Market, Near LIC Office, Rewari,Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.

     …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It was averred by the complainant that he purchased maruti Wagon-R LX on 12.11.2006 and availed the financial service from respondent/Opposite party (O.P.) and was to pay Rs.7316/- per month as of installment.  He was paying all the installments as per terms and conditions agreed in between them, but, due to illness he would not pay two installments in the months of October and November.  On 27.11.2007 workers of O.P. snatched vehicle from him.  A complaint was filed in court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. on the basis of which FIR No.20 dated 21.01.2008 was registered for the offence punishable under sections 392 and 506 of IPC.  Thereafter, O.P. sold vehicle to one Rajesh.  Court passed orders about ‘superdari’ on 15.07.2008. Due to act and conduct of O.P. he suffered huge loss and be compensated as prayed for.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that he did not deposit the amount in time.  AFC was to be paid as per clause 2 B of the agreement.  FIR No.20 dated 21.01.2008 was cancelled when the matter was found false.  While passing order about superdari it was ordered by the court that after payment of specific sum complainant could take the vehicle.  Cheque issued by complainant was dis-honoured and proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,1938 were still pending. The vehicle was not snatched from him and he had handed-over the same to it.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 11.05.2015.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      As per order dated 11.05.2015 it is clear that FIR has been cancelled as per report Ex.OP-7.  When complainant has failed to rebut this fact, it is to be presumed that vehicle was not snatched as alleged by him.  During proceedings before District Forum O.P. produced letter OP-5 wherein it was mentioned that complainant himself surrendered the vehicle. There is no evidence to controvert this finding.  Cancellation of FIR and letter Ex.OP-5 corroborate the stand of OP.  So, it cannot be presumed that complainant suffered any loss at the hands of O.P. 

7.      Impugned order is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

July 28th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.