Case nº Revision Petition No. 2679 of 2014 and I.A. Nos. 4322 and 5646 of 2014 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 27, 2014 (case Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs M. Nagaraja)

JudgeFor Appellant: Amit Singh and Rajan Singh, Advocates
PresidentV.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member) and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Resolution DateAugust 27, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


V.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)

I.A.No.5646 of 2014

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since our direction dated 06-08-2014 had not been complied by 21-08-2014 imposition of cost was certainly justified.

The I.A.No.5646 of 2014 stands dismissed.


  1. The complainant purchased a Renault Car for a consideration of Rs.6,10,000/- out of which Rs.4,90,000/- was financed by the petitioner. The loan taken by the complainant was repayable in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.14,685/-. The complainant gave 17 blank post-dated cheques to the petitioner. He made payment of Rs.2,87,698/- between 12-03-2009 to 23-12-2010. On 14-01-2011, the petitioner required the complainant to pay arrears amounting to Rs.73,000/- and warned to seize the vehicle in case it was not done. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question was later seized by the petitioner. A notice dated 31-03-2011 was sent by the complainant to the petitioner in this regard, seeking release of the vehicle. However, the said vehicle was eventually sold by the petitioner on 26-05-2011. The case of the complainant is that it was done without any notice to him. Being aggrieved from the acts of the petitioner the complainant approached the Chittoor District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum) seeking the following reliefs:

    (a) direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,21,230/- which the complainant invested on the vehicle,

    (b) directing to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards damages, due to deficiency on their part to the complainant,

    (c) direct the opposite party to deliver the vehicle AP03-TU 1179 and

    (d) directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,0000/- towards mental agony.

  2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and more than Rs.73,425/- had become due from him. Denying the seizure of the vehicle it was claimed in the reply that the complainant himself had handed over the vehicle to the petitioner expressing his inability to pay the remaining installments. Thereafter, the vehicle was sold and the amount realized from the sale of the vehicle was adjusted towards the payment of the loan taken by the complainant.

  3. The District Forum vide its order dated 04-04-2012 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant towards damages. Another payment of Rs.50,000/- was directed on account of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT