BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL
Complaint No.115/17.
Date of instt.: 04.05.2017.
Date of Decision:31.10.2017.
Balbir Singh s/o Shri Zile Singh, r/o VPO Bhana, Tehsil Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
- Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited through its Manager /Authorized Signatory Ram Sheela Bhawan, 1st Floor, Opp. Lakshya Institute, near IDBI Bank, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
- Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory Sadhana House, 2nd Floor, 570 P.B. Marg Worli, Mumbai-400018.
..………Ops.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri Jagdeep Dhull, Advocate for complainant.
Ops. ex parte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got financed his tractor bearing Registration No.HR-08Q-7917 from Op No.2 through Op No.1 amounting Rs.3,00,000/- in the month of November 2012. It is further alleged that he paid half installments of the loan amount, but due to family problems/ circumstances, he could not pay the remaining installments in time. It is further alleged that on 24.11.2015, Ops snatched the tractor in question from his driver forcibly. It is further alleged that he visited Ops office to pay the defaulting amount and for getting regularize the loan amount, but Ops did not pay any heed. This way, Ops are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, both Ops No.1 & 2 did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte vide orders dt. 09.05.2017 and 28.07.2017 respectively.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Mark CA to CE and closed the evidence on 29.09.2017.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the complainant, we found that the complainant got financed his tractor from Ops in the month of November 2012 and the complainant had to pay the monthly installments to Ops against that loan/ finance amount of Rs.3,00,000/. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that due to family problems/ circumstances, the complainant failed to regularly pay the installments. Due to non-payment of installments, the Ops forcibly snatched his tractor and the complainant had given a complaint in this regard in Police Station Pundri, the copy of the same is Mark-CD. It is further contended that the complainant requested many times to the Ops that he is ready to pay the balance installments amount and also request to release his tractor, but the Ops did not pay any heed to his request. The complainant has supported his version by affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents i.e. certificate of delivery of tractor in question as Mark CA, Cash/ Credit Bill Mark CB, Certificate of compliance by Ops Mark CC, copy of complaint given to SHO, PS Pundri Mark CD and copy of Registration Certificate of tractor in question Mark CE. The complainant produced a document Mark-CF regarding agreement number i.e. 2322440 in his additional evidence. Whereas, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against ex parte. No doubt, the Ops have proceeded against ex parte, but the complainant has to prove his case by leading cogent evidence. The complainant has not produced any receipt regarding the payment of even a single installment. In the present case, the complainant has not produced any document to show that how many installments he has paid and for how many installments he was defaulter. The complainant alleged that the tractor in question was snatched by the Ops on 24.11.2015 from his driver. The complainant has not mentioned the name and address of the driver in his complaint. The complainant even has not produced the affidavit of the said driver to prove that the tractor in question has been snatched from him, which was very material for the decision of the case. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations leveled in the complaint.
6. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.31.10.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
