The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, determined that the responsibility to prove any deficiency in service rests with the complainant.
Case Summary:
The complainant purchased a vehicle from a third party who had taken out a loan from Mahindra Finance. The loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments, and the complainant agreed to assume responsibility for the remaining payments. After paying an assignment fee, the complainant was responsible for future installments. However, his payments became irregular after August 2008, with partial payments and delayed payments, including presenting forged receipts. The complainant eventually admitted to the delays and forgery and agreed to sell the vehicle to someone else, depositing Rs. 2,08,000 to close the loan account. Although the Finance Company issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) after closing the account, it later repossessed the vehicle. The complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum, which ordered the finance company to return the vehicle in the same condition it was in when forcibly taken. The finance company’s appeal to the State Commission of Punjab was dismissed, leading to a revision petition before the National Commission.
Finance Company’s Arguments:
The finance company contended that there was no direct contract between them and the complainant, which meant the complainant was not considered a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.
National Commission’s Observations:
The National Commission noted that the complainant alleged the finance company repossessed the vehicle with police assistance, a claim denied by the finance company. The complainant’s reliance on a police report was found insufficient, as it only indicated that the vehicle was recovered due to unpaid installments without confirming police involvement. The Commission referred to previous judgments emphasizing that the complainant bears the burden of proving service deficiencies, including rulings from the Supreme Court in M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari and PSA SICAL Terminals (P) Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin. Additionally, the decision in Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan reinforced that disputed factual questions are beyond the scope of summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Due to insufficient evidence supporting the claim of police involvement and the admissions made during the hearing, the Commission overturned the District Forum and State Commission’s orders regarding the vehicle’s return or compensation.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676