Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/06/1438

M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandeep Prabhu Dombe - Opp.Party(s)

Shri. N. Y. Gupte & A. N. Gupte

13 Dec 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/06/1438
(Arisen out of Order Dated 04/07/2006 in Case No. CC/05/277 of District Solapur)
 
1. M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
40/8, Rajlaxmi Complex, Sonhira Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Solapur
Solapur
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sandeep Prabhu Dombe
R/o. Solapur, Near Ganesh Naik School, Solapur
Solapur
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:None present for the appellant.
 
Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the respondent.
 
ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 04/07/2006 passed in consumer complaint No.277/2005, Sandeep Prabhu Dombe V/s. M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (‘the Forum’ in short).

 

2.       It is the case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of Financial Institution, which financed the complainant for vehicle purchase.  Said vehicle was arbitrarily and forcefully taken in their possession by the Financial Institution on 02/03/2005.  Therefore, consumer complaint was filed.  Complaint was allowed and it was directed to the Financial Institution to return the vehicle or in the alternative to pay compensation of `2,43,075/-; further directed to pay compensation of `3,000/- for mental torture and `500/- as costs.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, Financial Institution has preferred this appeal.

 

3.       At the time of hearing of the appeal, appellant and his Counsel preferred to remain absent in spite of the fact that by way of abundant precaution additional intimation by post was given of today’s date to them.  In the circumstances, we heard Learned Counsel Mr.U.B. Wavikar for the respondent.

 

4.       From the facts and material placed before the Forum, the Forum rightly concluded that the vehicle was forcefully and arbitrarily taken into their possession by the Financial Institution and thus, deficiency in service on the part of Financial Institution is well established and we endorse said finding. 

 

5.       The Forum in the given circumstances directed to return the vehicle or alternatively grant compensation which inter alia covers the installments paid towards repayment of the loan and down payment of `1,70,000/- totalling amounting to `2,43,075/-, `3,000/- as compensation towards mental torture and `500/- as costs.  We find that no fault could be found in the impugned order.  Thus, the appeal being devoid of any substance, we pass the following order :-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal stands dismissed.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced

Dated 13th December 2011.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.