Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved by/dissatisfied with the adverse decision of the Ld. District Forum, Murshidabad in respect of the complaint case filed by Rabban Sk., Complainant, this Appeal is moved by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., OP No. 2, u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant is that, he purchased a tractor with the financial assistance (partly) rendered by the OP No. 2.  Complainant paid the amount of 8 instalments.  Still, all on a sudden, the OP No. 2 repossessed the tractor from him on 26-02-2014 without issuing any receipt thereof.  Although he repeatedly pleaded with the OP No. 2 for releasing the tractor, it did not pay any heed to his requests. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

On the other hand, the OP No. 2 straightway denied repossessing the subject tractor.  It is further alleged by this OP that the Complainant paid only 6 instalments out of the 35 instalments. 

Decision with reasons

The case was steadfastly fought by the Ld. Advocates of both sides, who were heard at length at the time of arguments.  I have also perused the material on record, including the citations referred to in the matter.

As it appears, the instant complaint was allowed out of the premises that the Appellant forcibly repossessed the subject vehicle without serving any prior notice.  It is indeed strange that the Ld. District Forum derived at such conclusion completely overlooking the fact that the Respondent No. 1 failed to put forth any material proof in support of his contention.  In the process, the Ld. District Forum, as it turns out, completely ignored the denial of the Appellant regarding forcible retrieval of the subject vehicle.  In case the Appellant committed any illegality, it was but natural that the Respondent No. 1 would lodge an FIR against it.  The Respondent No. 1 has not offered any satisfactory explanation as to why he did not contemplate taking necessary legal steps against the Appellant for such alleged illegal act of the Appellant. It was obligatory on the part of the Respondent No. 1 to prove that the subject vehicle was illegally repossessed by the Appellant, which, however, he miserably failed to establish.

Besides, when I put under scanner the conduct of the Respondent No. 1, it does not inspire much confidence in me about his sincerity of purpose.  To site an example, notwithstanding the Respondent No. 1 paid the amount of 6 EMIs, he has stated in his petition of complaint that he paid 8 EMIs.  Also, it is worth noting that the Respondent No. 1 paid only 6 EMIs out of the 35 EMIs without any rhyme and reason.  A chronic defaulter deserves no relief from a Court of Law for the simple reason that abating illegal/whimsical/illogical act leads to disaster. 

In view of this, the impugned order cannot be endorsed.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed against the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.