Punjab

Patiala

EA/18/88

Suneet Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra - Opp.Party(s)

17 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                      Execution Application No. 88 of 16.10.2018

                                      Decided on:         17.2.2023

 

Suneet Kumar S/o Sh.Bhupinder Singh R/o H.No.3974/1, Outside Sirhindi Gate, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...applicant/DH

                                      Versus

1. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Sadhna House, 2^nd Floor, Behind Mahindra Tower, 570-P.B. Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018 through its Managing Director, Mr.Ramesh Iyer.
2. Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, S.C.O.,1^st Floor, Chhoti Baradari, The Mall, Patiala.
3. Jagdish Kathuria, Regional Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Meerut (U.P.)

                                                                   ……………respondents/JDs

 

Execution Application under Section 27 

of the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

PRESENT            Sh.Rajiv Bedi, authorized representative for the applicant/DH

                             Sh.Surinder Gera, counsel for respondents/JDs

                  

         

                              

 

                                     

 ORDER

                                      S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant application is filed by Suneet Kumar S/o Bhupinder Singh       (hereinafter referred to as the applicant/DH) against Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as the respondent/s/JDs) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act) for enforcement of order dated 29.3.2017 passed by this Forum (Now Commission) in complaint case No.145 of 8.4.2016 in favour of the decree holder in complaint case No.145 of 8.4.2016.
2. The averments put forth by  the applicant are as under:        

That the applicant filed complaint No.145 of 8.4.2016, which was decided by this Forum (Now Commission)in his favour vide order dated 29.3.2017with the following directions torespondents No.1to3:

1. The OPs shall get the vehicle transferred in their own name within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the vehicle is not transferred by the OPs in their own name within said period of 30 days, they would refund the amount of Rs.7,55,000/- received by them from the complainant, within next 15 days after the expiry of the period of 30 days, referred to above. It shall be refunded alongwith interest @7% per annum  from the date of receipt of amount i.e. 7.11.2014 till the payment is made.
2. To refund Rs.29,580/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of its payment till the amount is refunded.
3. To pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, physical harassment & financial loss to the complainant
4. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost

The OPs No.1to3 are further directed to comply with the above referred directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall pay interest @9% per annum on the entire amounts minus litigation cost.

3. Against the said order respondents  filed First Appeal No.343 of 2017 on 8.5.2017, which was decided on 25.10.2017 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh.The following order was passed by the Hon’ble State Commission:

Sequel to the above, we partly allow the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties. They are given three months time from the date of order passed by the Commission to get the vehicle Ashok Leyland bearing registration No.RJ-11-GA-5627 transferred in their name from the office of RTO, Dholpur, Rajasthan and then transfer in the name of the complainant and for that they will pay the compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from 1.5.2017 till expiry of three months from the date of order. Otherwise there is no change in the order passed by the District Forum.

It is further ordered by the Hon’ble State Commission that ‘the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. It deposited another sum of Rs.9,91,882/- vide receipt dated 6.6.2017, in compliance of the order dated 12.5.2017.Both these sums alongwith interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them with the direction to the District Forum that in case the order passed by this Commission is not complied with by the opposite parties then the payment be released to the complainant after expiry of that period’.

4. The respondents have miserably failed to comply with the order of Hon’ble State Commission. Consequently prayer has been made for enforcement of order dated 29.3.2017 passed by this Forum and also the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission.
5. Upon notice, respondents appeared through counsel and filed reply to the execution application and took various preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that as per the directions of Hon’ble State Commission, the JDs have already deposited the whole amount and the order has already been complied with fully as stated above. It is mentioned that the applicant was to handover the possession of the truck in question to the JDs in the same and running condition as it was handed over to him in possession, but till today the applicant has not returned the truck and putting off the matter on one pretext or the other.After denying all other averments, respondents prayed for the dismissal of the application with costs.
6. We have heard the authorized representative of the applicant and ld. counsel for the respondents.
7. The present execution application has been filed by the decree holder/complainant for execution of the order dated 29.3.2017 of this Commission. First Appeal No.343 of 2017 was filed by the respondents against the order dated 29.3.2017. The order of this Commission was up held by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide order dated 25.10.2017 with the modification that the respondents were given three months time from the date of order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission to get the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-11-GA-5627 transferred in their name from the office of RTO, Dholpur, Rajasthan and then to transfer the same in the name of  applicant/complainant and for that they will pay the compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from 1.5.2017 till expiry of three months from the date of order.

 

8. An order was then passed by this Commission on 13.9.2019 against the present execution application, wherein the decree holder was directed to hand over the possession of the vehicle in question to the respondents before any further action in the matter is taken. The respondents again moved the Hon’ble State Commission against the above said order dated 13.9.2019 which was again dismissed by Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 29.4.2021 passed in appeal No.725 of 2019.
9. The respondents moved an application dated 27.8.2021 wherein it has been argued to appoint a surveyor to evaluate the value of the vehicle and not to release the amount till the vehicle is evaluated and depreciation of vehicle alongwith taxes have been paid by the applicant/decree holder. It has further been averred by the respondents that the decree holder has forcibly tried to give in the possession of the truck in question to the officials of the JDs. The truck was brought by towing with crane, which clearly indicates that the truck is not in running condition i.e. the condition in which it was handed over to the decree holder. The condition of the truck is deteriorated during these years and decree holder is bound to give the possession of the vehicle in running condition.
10. This application of the JDs clearly indicates that the possession of the truck has been handed over to them. Moreover, the question before this Commission is not to evaluate the  condition of the truck as no such order has been passed by this Commission or by the Hon’ble State Commission. As such application dated 27.8.2021 filed by the JDS for appointment of surveyor and evaluation of the vehicle is dismissed.  Therefore, directions of this Commission given vide order dated 13.9.2019 and having upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission on 29.4.2021 for handing over the possession of vehicle to the JDs have been complied with by the DH.
11. Accordingly, the execution application is allowed. The amount of Rs.10,77,003/-  remitted  to this Commission in compliance with order dated 25.10.2017 passed in First Appeal No.343 of 2017 titled as Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Suneet Kumar, by way of cheque bearing No.966955-56 dated 27.7.2018,  be released to the decree holder against proper receipt. The decree holder is at liberty to file further execution application, if any other amount on account of interest etc. is due.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                               Member                          President