View 30275 Cases Against Finance
View 1169 Cases Against Mahindra And Mahindra
THE MANAGER , MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICE LTD filed a consumer case on 19 Aug 2015 against THRESYAMMA in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/14/367 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Sep 2015.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.367/2014
JUDGMENT DATED : 19.08.2015
(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.191/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kalpetta order dated : 28.03.2014)
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER
SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
APPELLANT
The Branch Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd,
1st Floor, Thottathil Complex,
Chulliyode road,
Sulthan Bathery,
(Rep.by its power of attorney Balu.S.R)
(By Adv.Sri.Poovappally M.Ramachandran Nair,
Sri.C.S.Rajmohan & Sri.Abhishek.R.V)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1.Thresyamma.
W/o.Joseph,
Varikkanayil House,
Chundakkara Junction,
Pallikkunnu.P.O
Rep.by her son and authorised agent,
Mr.Tomy.V.Joseph,
S/o.Joseph,
Varikkanayil House,
Chundakkara Junction,
Pallikkunnu.P.O
Wayanad
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Civil Station,
Kalpetta, Wayanad
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant was the first opposite party in CC.No.191/2013 in the CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The first respondent was the complainant .She had availed vehicle loan from the appellant after hypothecating the purchased vehicle. Alleging that she had repaid the entire loan amount, she approached the consumer forum for direction to take steps to cancel the hypothecation endorsement in the RC book, to return the documents deposited with the appellant and to pay compensation to the complainant for the mental agony caused to her.
2. Consumer Forum observing that the appellant did not appear pursuant to the notice issued to them, set the appellant exparte and after recording the evidence of the complainant allowed the complaint as per the impugned order. The second opposite party was the Regional Transport Officer, Kalpetta and he had filed version explaining his stand which was not very much material. The appellant was the affected party and as such filed this appeal. The order of the consumer forum is sought to be assailed on the ground that the appellant had in fact appeared before the consumer forum on 17.10.2013 and the case was adjourned for filing version to 13.11.2003. But in the order it is mentioned that the appellant did not appear after receipt of notice. As per the allegations in the memorandum of appeal the consumer forum passed no specific order setting the appellant exparte. But in the order it is mentioned that the appellant was set exparte on 20.12.2013. It is further alleged that the appellant had prepared version as early as on 16.01.2014. But the consumer forum was reluctant to receive the version filed by the appellant.
3. So the appeal is sought to be sustained by challenging the procedure adopted by the consumer forum. May be the appellant has an arguable case but that case was not put forward before the consumer forum by filing version. So as the appellate forum we are unable to go into to the merit of the allegations in the appeal memorandum. The procedure adopted by the consumer forum can be seen from the proceedings paper found among the case records forwarded from the consumer forum. It is seen that when the matter first came up before the consumer forum on 17.10.11, the complainant was represented by her counsel. The case was adjourned for the appearance of the appellant and his version because notice sent to him was yet to be returned. Then the matter came up on 13.11.2013. Again the complainant was represented by her counsel. It is seen recorded that the notice to the appellant was served on 12.10.13. The second opposite party was not present. The matter was adjourned for the appearance of op no.2 and for version, obviously that of the first opposite party .Then the mater came up on 12.12.13. It is noted that the complainant as well as Op1 (appellant) were represented by their counsels. Then the matter was adjourned for the version of the appellant as last chance. OP .No.2 had filed version on 07.12.2013. Next posting of the case was on 20.12.2013. On that day the complainant was present. But the first opposite party was not represented and no version was filed on his behalf. Hence since the time for filing the version was over, the appellant was set exparte. On that day the second opposite party was not present. The complainant filed proof affidavit and the matter was adjourned for cross examination of the complainant. When the matter next came up on 16.01.2014, the complainant and opposite party were represented but the matter was adjourned for the cross examination of the complainant. Again on 11.02.2014 complainant was represented by her counsel. Op2 was not represented and the matter was adjourned for cross examination of the complainant. The matter was posted to 12.03.2014. On that day complainant was represented. But the opposite parties were not represented and the matter was adjourned for cross examination of the complainant as last chance. On 14.03.2014 to which day the case was posted the complainant was present. She was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. The complainant's evidence was closed. The appellant was exparte. The second opposite party was not present. Hence the entire evidence was closed and the matter was heard. The impugned order was pronounced on 28.03.2014.
4. We have referred to in detail the procedure adopted by the consumer forum in view of the allegations in the memorandum of appeal referred to the earlier. It cannot be said that there is factual error in the observations in the impugned order. No doubt extreme indulgence was shown by the consumer forum in affording opportunity to the appellant to defend their case. Yet, the appellant is finding fault with the consumer forum in order to hide their own laches. There is absolutely no explanation in the memorandum of appeal why the appellant and their counsel were not showing due diligence in defending the complaint. The allegation that the consumer forum was reluctant to receive the appellant’s version cannot be believed in the light of the indulgence shown by the consumer forum. On the contrary, the attitude of finding fault with the forums established by law to hide the laches of the parties and their counsels’ cannot be encouraged. So we find no reason to interfere with, the order of the consumer forum under challenge. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.RADHA : MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Be/
KERALA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHARLANE
VAZHUTHACADU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.367/2014
JUDGMENT DATED : 19.08.2015
Be/
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.