KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. Vs. MEHTA MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 14.09.2011, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 17/2007, "Pawan Kumar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited & Anr.", vide which, the said appeal was allowed and the order dated 22.11.2006, passed by the District Forum, Mansa in Complaint No. 91/06.06.2006, dismissing the said complaint, was set aside.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a Tata Sumo Spacio motor car was purchased by the complainant Pawan Kumar from the dealer M/s. Mehta Motors, Bathinda (OP-2), after raising finance from the petitioner/OP-1 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. It has been stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant purchased the said car on 19.03.2003 against invoice 444 for a price of 3,95,000.00, out of which, he paid a sum of 1,65,000.00 on his own and the remaining amount of 2,30,000.00 was financed by the petitioner/OP-1. As per the version of the complainant, an agreement dated 30.05.2003 was executed at Budhlada, District Mansa and the amount of loan was returnable in instalments in 35 months. As per his version, the OP-1 recovered a total amount of 3,77,590.00 from the complainant, but still they wrongfully took the custody and possession of the said vehicle on 01.05.2006. The vehicle was released after recovering a further sum of 40,190.00 from him on 16.05.2006, although nothing more was payable by him on that date. The petitioner has, therefore, shown huge deficiency in service towards him by repossessing the vehicle and charging excess amount. The District Forum at Mansa decided the said complaint on 22.11.2006 and dismissed the same on the ground that the jurisdiction to deal with the said complaint was with District Forum Bhatinda, because the OPs did not have any branch office within District Mansa and also, there was no evidence that the agreement was executed at Budhlada, District Mansa. The District Forum also observed that the agreement between the parties provided for arbitration, which also debars the complainant from filing of the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant challenged the same before the State Commission, which decided on 14.09.2011 that the petitioner/OP-1 had advanced a loan of 2.30 lakh to the complainant, although they claimed they had advanced a sum of 3.0 lakh to him. The District Forum directed that a sum of 94,870.00 should be paid back to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. and this amount included the excess loan amount of 70,000.00. Being aggrieved against this order, the petitioner/OP-1 is before me by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent No. 1/ complainant and respondent No. 2/ dealer, but they did not appear before this Commission despite proper service and hence were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.