Haryana

Karnal

CC/269/2021

Rajjo Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Ramesh Kumar

28 Jul 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                                     Complaint No.269 of 2021

                                                                     Date of instt. 08.06.2021

                                                                     Date of Decision: 28.07.2021

 

Rajjo Devi wife of Shri Jagmal Singh, resident of Village Naurta, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. 

                                                                             …….Complainant

                                                 Versus

 

1.       Mahindra & Mahindra Finance, SCO No.87-88, Second Floor, Mahila Ashram Complex, Behind Bus Stand, Karnal, through its Branch Manager/Authorised Person.

2.       Mahindra & Mahindra Finance registered office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001.

                                                                             …..Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before        Sh. Jaswant Singh………President.        

                   Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member

 

Present:     None for complainant.

 

                    Today the case was fixed for consideration on the point of maintainability of complaint. In the present complaint, the complainant sought relief directing the OPs not to repossess the vehicle in question till the final decision of the present complaint or to appoint any other recovery agents to receive the vehicle in question as the truck in question is only and lonely source of income. A careful perusal of the file reveals that 3/4 installments is due towards the complainant payable to the OP No.1 but in the complete version of the complainant, no where shows any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. However, it is an admitted fact that a civil suit for permanent injunction against the OPs has already been filed by the present complainant which is pending adjudication before learned Civil Judge, Indri, and is fixed for 04.08.2021.

                   Further, none has appeared on behalf of complainant. On 15.6.2021, also none was appeared on behalf of complainant. It seems that the complainant is not interested in persuing his case as neither the complainant nor his counsel is appearing before this Commission in order to persue the same or to explain any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

                   Moreover, as per Section 36 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, on receipt of a complaint made under Section 35, the District Commission may, by order, admit the complaint for being proceeded with or reject the same; Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was filed.

                   The present complaint was presented before this Commission on 10.06.2021 and twenty-one days as provided in the aforesaid act for admissibility of complaint had already been lapsed but due to spread of COVID-19 cases, the present complaint was adjourned beyond the period prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, but despite that, today none has appeared on behalf of complainant, to explain any deficiency of service on the part of OPs.    

                   Hence, keeping in view the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced
Dated: 28.07.2021

 

    President,         

District Consumer Disputes

 Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)     

     Member