Date of Filing :09.11.2020

 Date of Disposal :28.10.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 28.10.2024

PRESENT

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL No.779/2020

1. M/s Mahindra and Mahindra

    Financial Services Limited

    No.1240, 1^st Floor, Pourvani Building

    4^th Curve, Ashok Nagar

    Mandya- 571 401

2. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial

    Services Limited

    Corporate Office, 2^nd Floor

    Sadana House, Behind Mahindra Towers

    No.570, P.B.Marg, Worli

    Mumbai-570 018

    (By Mr Prashant, Advocate)                                        Appellant

                                                 -Versus-                                           

   Mr Puttaswamy

   Aged about 61 years

   S/o Venkata Gowda

   Residing at Vivekananda Marg

   Karasawadi Road

   Kaveri Nagar 1^st Stage

   Mandya-570 401                                                         Respondent

   (By Mr Hariprasad M B, Advocate)  

-:ORDER:-

Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by OPs 1 and 2 aggrieved by the Order dated 14.11.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.104/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya (for short, the District Forum).

2.       The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Forum.

3.       The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and records of District Forum.

         Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be: 

          Whether impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed in CC No. 104/2017 does call any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?

4.       Complainant has raised a Consumer Complaint No.104/2017 against OPs 1 and 2 for the alleged rendering deficiency in service in respect of Loan Agreement dated 26.02.2013.  It is not in dispute that they have entered into a Loan Agreement dated 26.02.2013 with loan amount of Rs.5,02,827/- and such loan to be repaid in 45 equal monthly instalments of Rs.14,760/- commencing from 26.02.2013 and closed on 25.10.2016.  The total amount including interest would be a sum of Rs.6,64,200/-.  OPs 1 and 2 have denied the allegations of rendering deficiency in service on their part.  In view of rival contentions of the parties, the District Commission held an enquiry  proceed to allowed the complaint in part and directed the complainant to pay balance amount being 7 instalments in one lump sum within one month and directed OPs 1 and 2 to return seized vehicle within 2 months.  The District Commission also directed OPs 1 and 2 to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation costs.   It is this order is assailed in this Appeal contending, during first eight months, the complainant has made payment within stipulated dates,   thereafter, he was not irregular in his payment and in this regard, notice also issued not only against him, but also guarantor invoking the Arbitration clause referring dispute to the Arbitrator. One Mr A Srinivasan, Arbitrator, had  passed an award, after issuance of Arbitration notice dated 17.10.2014.  It has come in the enquiry that complainant has failed to appear in the Arbitration Proceedings, finally learned Arbitrator passed an award on 07.02.2015 and this complaint came to be filed on 11.08.2017.  In other words, only after passing of an Arbitration Award, complainant has raised a consumer complaint seeking direction against OPs 1 and 2 to release seized vehicle and to pay compensation which was considered by the District Forum without appreciating the materials placed on record.  It has also come in the enquiry, during  pendency of the Arbitration Proceedings, complainant has made part payment and the OPs have received without prejudice and  with a promise to adjust such payment towards claim amount and in view of such award passed by Arbitrator, OPs 1 and 2 repossessed the vehicle on 22.05.2017 and thereafter, issued notice dated 08.06.2017 informing the complainant that on failure to clear the balance, vehicle will be sold and after receipt of such notice, complainant issued legal notice dated 05.07.2017 had raised a consumer complaint on 11.08.2017 with a prayer to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-  together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a and the District Commission directed the OPs to release vehicle and directed the complainant to pay only 7 instalments, which in our view, is contrary to the facts and law is liable to be set aside and as a result matter has to be  remitted back to reconsider all these vital aspects of the matter and to decide the complaint afresh affording opportunity to both parties.  Accordingly, proceed to allow the Appeal.  Consequently, set aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.104/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya with a direction to readmit the complaint and decide the complaint in accordance with law affording opportunity to both the parties as early as possible keeping in mind the object of CP Act 2019.

5.       Amount in deposit is transferred to the District Commission for the needful.

6.       Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties concerned for their information.

                Lady Member                    Judicial Member

*s