NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2108 OF 2015

(Against the Order dated 26/05/2015 in Appeal No. 1155/2009 of the State Commission
Rajasthan)
1. M/S. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL
SERVICES LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
PUNEET SINGH LEGAL EXECUTIVE,2ND FLOOR,
SADHANA HOUSE 507, P.B. MARG, WORLI
MUMBAI-400018
2. M/S. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL
SERVICES LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE AT 503-504, FORTH FLOOR,
SHALIMAR COMPLEX CHURCH ROAD, MI ROAD,
JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. MUKESH KUMAR & ANR.
S/O RUNKARAM CASTE JAAT R/O VILLAGE
KHARAKHEDA TEHSIL TIBBI,
HANUMANGARH
RAJASTHAN
2. V.D. MOTORS (P) LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SURATGARH ROAD,
SRI GANGANAGAR
RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent : Nemo (served)

Dated : 15 Apr 2019

ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services
Ltd.—the Petitioner against the order dated 26.05.2015 in First Appeal No.1155/2009
passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

-1-
Facts in brief are that a vehicle was financed by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1.
Some instalments were not paid by the Respondent No.1 and notice was issued to the
Respondent No.1. However, in the meanwhile, the vehicle met with an accident and was
taken to the Respondent No.2 for repairs.

The Petitioner issued a letter on 24.12.2007 to the Respondent No.2 that the vehicle be
retained for non-payment of instalments by the Respondent No.1. Then on 14.03.2008,
again a letter was sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 to repay the remaining
amount of the loan for vehicle which was retained by the Respondent No.2 otherwise the
vehicle shall be sold.

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Complainant took away the vehicle forcibly from the
premises of Respondent No.2 on 15.03.2008.

A complaint was filed by the Respondent No.1 before the District Forum stating that his
vehicle has been repossessed by the Petitioner and his vehicle may be sold and after
adjusting the remaining loan amount remaining amount may be paid to the Complainant.

The complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party. However, the District Forum allowed
the complaint by passing the following order:

“That as a result the complaint of the complainant is allowed against the Non
Applicants and Non Applicants are directed to sell the vehicle of complainant
bearing No. PB 15 C 0560 within the period of one month and the sale proceeds
shall be adjusted towards the loan account and NOC of the loan shall be issued. If
any amount remains after adjustment then the same shall be refunded to the
Complainant. In addition the direction is issued to pay Rs.10000/- as
compensation and Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one
month. If the amount is not paid within period of one month then the interest @ 12
per annum shall be payable.”

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the
State Commission being Appeal No.1155/2009. After hearing on the application of the
Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 was also made a party in the appeal before the State
Commission. However, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order
of the District Forum.

Hence, the present Revision Petition.

The notice was issued to both the Respondents, however, even after service none is present
during the arguments today. Accordingly, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was
heard.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner has never repossessed the
vehicle as the same was taken forcibly by the Complainant from the premises of the
Respondent No.2 and therefore there is no question of selling the vehicle and adjusting the
loan amount due on the Complainant from the sale proceeds and to refund the remaining
amount, if any. He further stated that in the written statement, it is clearly stated that the
Complainant forcibly took away the vehicle from the premises of the Respondent No.2.

-2-
He further stated that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has relied on all
the documents submitted by the Petitioner.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel
for the Petitioner and examined the record.

First of all, it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent findings and facts
cannot be reassessed in the Revision Petition by this Commission as observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R
Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the
following has been held:-

“23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if
the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their
jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their
jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case,
the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside
the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State
Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

Even on merits, it is seen that the State Commission observed as under:

“Non Applicants stated that the complainant has forcibly taken the vehicle on
15.03.2008, the fact has been informed to them by V.D. Motors. But V.D. Motors
has not taken any action, if any one takes the vehicle by force then the instance
comes within definition of Theft and Dacoity. If the situation was such then the
matter ought to have been reported to police by V.D. Motors on 15.03.2008, why
the action has not been taken, no explanation has been given. Opposite Parties
have been informed about the incident vide letter dated 17.03.2008, but they also
have not taken any action with Police. In this regard best evidence would have
been any person/employee from V.D. Motors. But no such evidence/affidavit has
been produced before the District Forum. Therefore it cannot be said that
complainant has forcibly taken vehicle from V.D. Motors. Opposite parties in their
Notice dated 14.03.2008 has clearly stated that if Rs.139730/- is not deposited then
the vehicle shall be sold. Then instead of selling the vehicle the Opposite Party has
fabricated story that the complainant has forcibly taken the vehicle. Therefore the
opposite parties in not selling the vehicle, not adjusting the sale proceeds to the
loan outstanding and in not issuing the NOC to the complainant had committed
deficiency in service.”

From the above observations of the State Commission, it is clear that the Petitioner is
trying to not to sell the vehicle in spite of the clear order of the District Forum. The story
of the Petitioner is difficult to believe as no FIR has been lodged by the Respondent No.2
in the matter. If a vehicle is taken away by force by somebody from the premises of a
company, the company would definitely lodge a FIR. In the present case, no such FIR has
been filed. It is argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that FIR was to be
lodged by the Respondent No.2 and not by the Petitioner. As the Respondent No.2
informed the Petitioner of the alleged incident of taking away the vehicle by force by the
Complainant even then the Petitioner neither lodged the FIR themselves as the vehicle was

-3-
retained by the Respondent No.2 on the advice of the Petitioner nor the Petitioner advised
the Respondent No.2 to lodge the FIR. The FIR would have been the best proof of the
allegation of the Petitioner. Thus, even on merits, I find that no illegality, material
irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed by the State Commission in the
impugned order which calls for any interference from this Commission.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and the
same is dismissed.

......................
PREM NARAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

-4-