Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/750

JAGDISH SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FIN. SER. - Opp.Party(s)

MS.SANGEETA MOHARIR

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL  

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 750 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 28.05.2015 passed in C.C.No.11/2015 by District Forum, Ashoknagar)

 

JAGDISH SINGH                                                                                               …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL

SERVICES LIMITED.                                                                                         …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR.  MRS MONIKA MALIK                           :      MEMBER                                  

 

                                      O R D E R

08.04.2019

 

          Ms. Sangeeta Moharir, learned counsel for the appellant.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            Challenging the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ashoknagar (For short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.11/2015 whereby the Forum has partly allowed the complaint filed by the appellant by directing respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the appellant for deficiency committed by it, the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

2.                     We find that the Forum has awarded compensation as it found that the appellant’s application for financing the truck was denied belatedly by the respondent at the stage when the appellant had completed the necessary formalities and booked for purchase of truck.

3.                     Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Forum is meagre and requires to be enhanced. She also submits that the blank cheques received from the complainant ought to have been ordered to be returned to the complainant, when the finance was refused. 

4.                     We find that for the aforesaid deficiency in service, award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- is adequate and needs no enhancement. So far as non-passing of the order for return of cheques, suffice it is to observe that the cheques issued in early 2015 had already lost its efficacy when the impugned order was passed. In the circumstances, passing of the order for return of cheques being futile exercise, the same was rightly not passed.

5.                     The appeal fails and is dismissed. 

 

              (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)           (Dr. Monika Malik)             

                     President                                             Member