Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/834

SHREERAM TRANSPORT FIN. CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIRENDRA S. YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

SH. SATISH SHARMA

01 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 834 OF 2015

 (Arising out of order dated 09.03.2015 passed in C.C.No.46/2014 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)

 

                                                    

SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD & ORS.                                           …         APPELLANTS.

 

                Versus

 

VEERENDRA SINGH YADAV.                                                                                …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

 

01.07.2024

 

     Shri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.

     None for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                  The opposite parties/appellants-finance company has filed this appeal against the order dated 09.03.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.46/2014 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

2.                Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment had purchased a Tata vehicle from Sanghi Brothers, Bhopal on 26.02.2010 for which he had obtained loan from the Bhopal branch of the finance company. It is submitted by the

-2-

complainant that he was paying the installments regularly towards repayment of loan amount and till date he paid Rs.3,00,000/-. It is alleged by the complainant that when he had obtained loan details and account statement he came to know that the amount deposited by him was deposited by the finance company in the loan account of one Vijendra Singh R/O Tekpura, Tehsil-Berasia, District-Bhopal. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission for giving direction to the finance company to deposit the amount deposited by him in his account. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

3.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite party-finance company to adjust the amount deposited by the complainant in his loan account within a period of one month. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/- is also awarded.

4.                During arguments learned counsel for the appellants-finance company argued that in the reply also the finance company has stated that by mistake the name of Vijendra Singh was recorded in place of the complainant’s name Veerendra Singh Yadav, however, the loan agreement number is correct and the amount deposited by the complainant was deposited in his account. He fairly conceded that if the complainant will

-3-

come to their office along with deposit receipts, his account will be tallied and corrected in his presence. He argued that the District Commission has rightly directed for making the account correct but has awarded total compensation and costs of Rs.15,000/- which deserves to be set-aside.

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the appellants-finance company and on going through the record we find that it is an admitted fact that by mistake the name of complainant was mentioned as Vijendra Singh instead of Veerendra Singh and the finance company is ready and willing to correct the loan account to the satisfaction of the complainant on showing the deposit receipts. In such circumstances we find that the amount of compensation and costs is on higher side and considering the bonafide admission of the finance company it deserves to be reduced.

6.                Accordingly, we direct the finance company to adjust the amount deposited by the complainant towards his loan account in his loan account. The finance company is directed to pay a total sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant. The aforesaid order be complied within two months. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.

 

-4-

7.                In the result, this appeal stands partly allowed. No order as to costs.

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                                 Member