Delhi

StateCommission

A/08/935

TATA FINANCE LTD NOW TATA MOTORS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIVEK MITTAL - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                   Date of Decision: 24.07.2015

First Appeal No. 935/2008

(Arising out of the order dated 21.08.2008 passed in complaint case No. 596/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (New Delhi), Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

M/s TATA Finance Ltd.

(Now Tata Motors Ltd.)

Through its Director/MD/Manager

4^th Floor, Kanchanjanga Building

18, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001                                                          Appellant

 

Versus

 

Sh. Vivek Mittal

S/o Sh. C.B.Mittal

R/o H.No. J-140, Ashok Vihar

Phase-I, Delhi-110052                                          Respondent

                                                                  

          CORAM

 

SH N P KAUSHIK                              -                       Member (Judicial)

SH. S.C. JAIN                                    -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dt. 21.08.2008 passed by the District Forum-VI. Vide impugned orders appellant/OP was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 Lac for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant.  Litigation charges of Rs. 5000/- were also awarded.
2.      Facts in brief are that the complainant Sh. Vivek Mittal had got his vehicle financed with the appellant/OP on 21.09.2005.  While paying the loan amount in instalments, the complainant admittedly committed default in payment of instalment in the Month of April or May 2006.  Appellant/OP with the help of his musclemen took possession of the vehicle from the father of the complainant in Haridwar on 18.05.2006.  It is also admitted by the appellant/OP that the vehicle was taken into possession on 15.05.2006. Be that as it may, the vehicle was released only on 05.07.2006 after receiving the amount payable towards subsequent instalments and the parking charges.
3.      Now the question arises as to whether the Appellant/OP was justified in taking possession of the vehicle on 18.05.2006 when admittedly payment of all the instalments was made on 15.05.2006.
4.      There are a numbers of judgments condemning deploying of goons for taking of possession of the vehicles. For a single default of one instalment, the complainant had to litigate in the District Forum for a period of two years and in the present Commission for a period of seven years. Payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 Lac in the abovesaid facts and circumstances is not on the higher side. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merits.
5.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
6.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

(S C JAIN)

144616126. Member