Karnataka

Bidar

CC/14/2014

LAXMAN S/O DEVAPPA KUNDAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICES LTD, BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY KUMAR GADIG

30 Jun 2016

ORDER

            ::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                        C.C.No. 14/2014

 

                                                                                        Date of filing : 14/02/2014

 

                                                                                   Date of disposal : 30/06/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                  (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B

                                                                                                    President.

    

                                      (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halilpurgi)

                                                                          B.A.LL.B.

                                                                                     Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT:         Laxuman, s/o Devappa, Kundan,

                                       Age:44 years, Occ: Private Service,

                                       R/o No.18/3/270, Vijaylaxmi,

                                       Chidri road, near Janata School, Haq Colony,

                                       Bidar.   

                                        

 

 

 

                                    (By Shri. Vijay Kumar, Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S                 The Manager,

                                    Mahindra & Mahindra Financial services Ltd.,

                                       IInd Floor, Dr.C.S.Patil Complex,

                                    Opp. Ferdin Theatre, near Dist.Jail,

                                       Udgir road, Bidar.

 

 

                                   (  By Shri. V.V. Chandriki, Advocate.)

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

The present complainant is before us, invoking section 12 of the C.P.Act., alleging unfair trade practices and deficiency of services against the O.P.  The sum total of his allegations is as follows:

2.           That, to eke out a livelihood, the complainant was desirous of purchasing a TATA/ACE MAGIC, LMV Maxicab and had approached the O.P. to extend a loan facility.  The O.P. at the time of negotiations deliberated that, it’s terms are more competitive, rate of interest are far less than even nationalised banks and the complainant believing such pep talks signed all the required papers in good faith which were in English language.  Resultantly, the loan amount was released by the O.P. to the tune of Rs. 2,76,000/- in the month of June-2011 and the complainant was required to repay the loan amount @ Rs. 8,710/- p.m.  He had already remitted 22 (twenty two ) of such instalments to the O.P., which amounts to Rs. 1,91,620/- in all.  The complainant further avers that, in course of time technical glitches developed in the vehicle, for which he was compelled to leave the vehicle at the disposal of the mechanic for rectification of defects, which resulted in loss of  income for a good number of days.  The O.P. had been issuing notices to him and without any intimation, seized the vehicle from the mechanic’s work-shop, and sold the vehicle at an abysmal low price of Rs. 85,000/- and appropriated the amount.  Despite such illegal action, the O.P. has been demanding a further alleged unpaid loan amount of Rs. 1,34,796/- with interest, oblivious of the fact that, the complainant has sustained huge loss by the illegal seizure and whimisical sale.  The complainant further avers that, the O.P. has been charging exorbitant interest in spite of appropriating the usufructs of the vehicle, though the former was in regular payments.

3.             Ultimately, the complainant prays that, this Forum declares the illegal demand notice as null and void, being a bi product of unethical trade practice and the seizure as illegal.  It is significant to note here, in the prayer, no compensation litigation expenses, or any other monetary relief is claimed but at a later stage, improving the pleadings, the complainant claims a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in his evidence.

4.             Entering into defence, after the Court’s notice, the O.P. has filed it’s written versions on 19-04-2014, denying all allegations, but has admitted in para-3 about receipt of 22 instalments of payments with little irregularity.  Arbitrarily, the O.P. even disowns force majeur conditions that may inevitably accrue in any commercial transaction.  Disputing the contentions of the claimant’s illegal seizure in sub para 4 of the para-3 of the versions, the O.P. claims that, the borrower/complainant had surrendered the motor vehicle on 24-07-2013 with a very bad shape, when 6 instalments of Rs. 55,780/- was over due and the former was not ready to take back the vehicle.  Therefore, the O.P. got the vehicle valued by a registered valuer and sold it at auction against a price of Rs. 85,000/-.  We have scanned the entire case record but could not find any such surrender letter claimed by the O.P.

5.              The Present case, having been originated in the year 2014, the complainant had filed an I.A. under order XIII Rule 8 C.P.C. seeking a directions from this Court to furnish the extract of loan account of him, maintained by the O.P.  Our learned predecessors vide a considerate order dt.19-07-2014 had allowed the I.A. directing the O.P. to furnish the updated extract of the loan account of the complainant.

6.             We observe from the order sheets of the case that, till 15-06-2016, in spite of availing several adjournments the O.P. has miserably failed to submit such a vital documents in the Court, obviously indicating that, the house of the O.P. is not in order and they are hesitant to produce the ordered papers, lest their malfeasance comes to light.  Hence, an adverse inference was drawn on 15-06-2016 and the case was posted for orders on today.

7.              In the case, the parties have filed documents (copies listed at the end of this order, as well as evidence affidavits and written arguments justifying their respective stands.  But, as a Court of justice, we cannot endorse the incalcitrancy  of the O.P.  to with hold a vital document as per the order dt. 19-07-2014 and hence without further delving into the matter, we pass the following:

: :   ORDER : :

 

              For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 12 of  Consumer Protection Act. 1986, is hereby allowed partly with costs against O.P.

 

1.   It is categorically held that, the O.P. has perpetrated upon the

Complainant an unfair trade practice as defined in section 2(V) of the C.P. Act. and deficiency of service within the definition of section 2(o) of the C.P. act.

2.   The O.P. is restrained to collect any further amount from the

Complainant arising out of the contract under reference. (Refer case law Ramala Roy V/s Rabindranath Sen-1994(I)CPR 66).

 

3.   Acting under section 14(I) (d) clause 2, we direct that, the O.P.  

Deposits a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as punitive damages for defying the considerate judicial order of this Court dt.19/07/2014, to be credited towards the Consumer Welfare Fund of this Forum.

 

           (d)  No prayers being made towards compensation or litigation  expenses or costs, in the complaint, there would be no such order(s) to that effect.

 

4.  A copy of this order be transmitted to the Asst.Director,

Information an publicity, near Railway Station,Bidar, to take steps for wide publicity in all Kannada and English news papers in circulation in the state and also electronic media, within seven days of receipt of the order to ensure consumer awareness, failing which the public officer would be prosecuted for dereliction of duty and defying the lawful order of a judicial Forum.

 

          (f )  Four weeks time is granted to comply the orders at (a), (b) & (c).

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30^th   day of June-2016 )

 

 

                        Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                

           Member                                                                         President

 

 

Documents filed by the complainant.

 

1. Ex.P.1-Money receipts dt. 11-05-2013.
2. Ex.P.2- Notice to surrender teh vehicle dt.01-08-2013.
3. Ex.P.3- Notice to surrender to the vehicle dt. 21-08-2013.
4. Ex.P.4- Final notice by O.P. dt. 29-05-2013.
5. Ex.P.5- Demand notice dt. 22-11-2013.
6. Ex.P.6-Demand notice for Rs. 98,227/-, dt. 04-05-2015.
7. Ex.P.7-Notice of arbitration dt. 16-06-2015.  

 

Documents filed by the Opponent.

 

1. Ex.R.1- Settlement working sheet dt. 25-10-2013/30-09-2013.

( Addressed to nobody )

 

                        Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                

           Member                                                                         President