Karnataka

Bijapur

CC/42/2015

Mahantesh S/o Laxman Aigali, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S. S. Durgad

10 Jul 2017

ORDER

                 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VIJAYAPUR

DATE OF FILING 26^th  DAY OF JUNE 2015

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:42/2015

 

DATED THIS THE  10^TH  DAY OF JULY 2017

 

 

01) Sri S.H. Hosalli                            -             President.  

                  B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

02) Smt.G.S. Kalyani                         -        Lady Member.

                 B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

COMPLAINANT   -	1	Mahantesh S/o Laxman Aigali,      Age:35 Yrs, Occ:Driver           R/o Vikrampur Athani, also at Jorapur      Pet, Banagar galli, Vijayapur.      Tq. B.Bagewadi,      Dist:Bijapur.
		(By Sri. S.S.Durgad, Adv)

- V/S -

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -	1	The Manager,      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance      Services Ltd., Mahadev Plaza,        Kolhapur Circle, Belgaum.
	2	The Manager,      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance     Services Ltd., Lingad gudi Road,       Parekh Building, Vijayapur.
	3	The Regional Manager,     Mahindra & Mahindra Finance    Services Ltd., Regional Office at No.62,      2nd Floor, High Street, 11th Main road,      4th Block, Jayanager,    Bengalure-560011.     (Op-1 to 3 by Sri. P.S.Udupikar,, Adv)

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

 

BY SHRI. S.H.HOSALLI, PRESIDENT.

 

 

 

This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directing the Ops to released the Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing registration No:KA-23/9403, in the name of the complainant, Rs.4,00,000/- for suffering mental agony, cost of the complaint and any other reliefs as the forum deems fit under the circumstance of the case. 

 

2)       The facts of the case in brief are that;

          Complainant purchased the Tata Sumo Victa Ex.T.C-F, Maxi cab availing loan from Op-1.  The total value of said Maxi Cab was Rs.4,57,214/- and Op-1 sanctioned loan of Rs.3,85,000/- it is agreed by the complainant that he has to repay the said loan amount in 48 installments of Rs.9,625/- per month, Op-1 sanctioned loan on 26/12/2005.

 

3)       After sanction of loan complainant purchased said Maxi cab on 11/1/2006, Reg. No. is KA-23/9403.

 

4)       After the purchase of said vehicle complainant paid the installments regularly.  But due to financial difficulties complainant not paid due installments due to this, Op seized complainant’s vehicle on 16/03/2007, on the same day complainant paid outstanding installments to Op-1 up to 10/03/2007, i.e. Rs.53,625/-.  But Op-1 has not released the vehicle infavour of complainant, even after the payment of due installment amount till 16/03/2007.  Which is unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

 

5)       On 21/06/2014 the Opponent had issued legal notice to complainant calling upon complainant for amicable settlement.  Hence, complainant several times approached Ops to release the said vehicle in his favour.  But Ops one or the other pretext postpone the same, at last complainant got issued legal notice to Ops on 21/06/2014 calling upon the Op-1 to release his vehicle same is turn in vain.  Hence, Complainant filed this case for necessary reliefs as prayed.  

 

6)       After receipt of notice, Op-1 to 3 appeared through his counsel and contest the case by filing objections, in the said written objections Ops stated that the complaint of the complainant is all false frivolous and vexatious and it is not maintainable either in law or facts.  But however, admitted about the transaction. It is submitted that this Op has handover the possession of the vehicle on 17/03/2007 with due endorsement of the complainant.  The complainant claim is pertaining to the year 2007, setting up this false claim for the cause of action arosed on 16/03/2007. i.e. laps of 8 years is not maintainable under the law.  The claim of complainant under the petition is barred by limitation on this count complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine.

 

7)       It is submitted by this Op that after the payment, this Op has released the seized vehicle on 17/03/2007 as per release order dtd:16/03/2007.  The vehicle was taken possession by the brother of complainant Sri. Jagadish Laxman Aigali, who was made the outstanding dues of Rs.53,623/- on 16/03/2007, the complainant  has come up with false asserties that this Op has kept the vehicle within till today.  Op submits that even after service of notice  dtd.21/06/2014 calling upon the complainant for amicable settlement complainant not approach this Ops for payment outstanding dues of Rs.3,34,125/- on the other hand, he has approached this Hon’ble forum with concocted averments.  Hence, complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint and complaint is barred by limitation.  Hence, Ops prays for dismissal of complaint.

 

8)       Complainant filed complainant affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced 11 documents same are marked as Ex.C-1 to C-11. On the contrary Op filed Ops affidavit, and produced statement of account pertaining to the complaint same is marked as Ex.Op-1.  Complainant filed written arguments.

9)       After hearing arguments the following points that arise for our consideration are:-

 

          1)  Whether the complaint is time barred?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief, as is

     Sought for?

3)  What order?

 

10)    Answer to the above points.

 

1)Negative.

2)Negative.

          2) As per Final order.

 

 

REASONS

 

11)    Point No.1 & 2 :- It is admitted fact that, complainant obtained loan from Ops for purchasing the Tata Sumo Victa Ex. T.C-F Maxi cab.  It is admitted fact that complainant paid due installments. But complainant not paid installments towards loan amount to the Ops, Ops seized the vehicle on 16/03/2007 after seizure of said vehicle.  Complainant paid due out standing installments up to 16/03/2007.  But Ops submits that, on the same day vehicle was released in favour of complainant’s brother who paid the due installments.  But according to the complainant, the vehicle was seized on 16/03/2007 from the date of seizure of vehicle to till this day Ops not released vehicle in his favour, We go  through the allegation of complainant if the vehicle was not released why the complainant not take any action for repossessing the vehicle within a short time.  Complainant filed this complaint praying for release of vehicle after lapse of long period i.e. 8 years from the date seizure of vehicle.  Moreover the complainant not filed interim application praying  for condonation of delay in filing this complaint. Though Ops has taken this fact in his objections.   

 

12)     But Ops draw our attention, towards the maintainability of this complaint. Ops submits that, the vehicle was seized on 16/03/2007 till this day i.e. filing of this complaint i.e. 26/06/2015 complainant kept mum without making any efforts to get the possession of the vehicle.  Under these circumstances setting this false claim is not maintainable i.e. after lapse of 8 years from the date when the vehicle was seized. 

 

13)     We looking to the averments made by both parties we conclude that the present complaint filed after lapse of 8 years from the date of seizure of said vehicle which is not maintainable in the eye of law. In this regard we rely upon the ruling reported in CPR 2016 (3) 127 (NC) in Ali H. Zaidi V/S Lucknow Development Authority case it was held that,  that case delay of 8 years in filling complaint cannot be condoned.  Hence, here in this case also there is 8 years delay in filing this complaint.  The cause of action arose on the date when the vehicle was seized by the Ops.  But not on the issuance of notice from Ops thereby the present complaint is time bared.

 

14)     Therefore, the complaint is time bared and not maintainable and as such the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.  Hence, we answer to the Point No:1 & 2 as negative.

 

 

15)    Point No.3:-  In the result, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

1)The complaint of the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable.

2)Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties.

 

 (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, directly on Computer, edited, corrected  and  then  pronounced in the open forum on this 10^th   day of July 2017).

 

 

 

 

 

Sri. S. H. Hosalli  President.

Smt. G. S. Kalyani     Lady Member.