Order Date: Not Mentioned
Order Name: M/S. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Singh
Case No.: R.P. No. 2305/2015
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, has ruled that the responsibility to prove a deficiency in service lies with the complainant.
Case Background
The complainant bought a vehicle from a third party who had taken a loan from Mahindra Finance. This loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments. Upon purchasing the vehicle, the complainant agreed to take over these remaining installments, paid an assignment fee, and became responsible for future payments. However, after August 2008, the complainant’s payments became irregular, and only partial payments were made for some installments. The complainant initially provided forged receipts but later admitted to this and apologized. He then decided to sell the vehicle to another person and deposited Rs. 2,08,000 to pre-close the loan account. The finance company closed the loan account and issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC). However, the finance company later took possession of the vehicle. The complainant then filed a complaint with the District Forum, which directed the finance company to return the vehicle in the same condition as it was when repossessed. The finance company appealed to the State Commission of Punjab, which dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the finance company filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Finance Company’s Argument
The finance company argued that there was no direct contract between them and the complainant, making the complainant not a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission noted that the complainant claimed the finance company repossessed the vehicle with police assistance, whereas the finance company denied this. The complainant used a police report to support this claim. However, the report only mentioned that the vehicle was recovered due to unpaid installments and did not confirm any police involvement. The commission cited several judgments, including:
- M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, where it was emphasized that the complainant must prove deficiency.
- PSA SICAL Terminals (P) Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin, which reaffirmed this principle.
- Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan, which stated that highly disputed factual questions fall outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act’s summary proceedings.
Given the lack of evidence supporting the complainant’s claim of police involvement and the admissions made during the hearing, the commission decided to overturn the orders of the District Forum and State Commission regarding the vehicle’s return or compensation.
Takeaway
This ruling highlights the necessity for complainants to provide clear and substantiated evidence when alleging deficiency in service. Without solid proof, the burden of proving the claim remains unmet, potentially leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
