MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD TRHOUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, PUNEET SINGH LEGAL EXECUTIVE, BRANCH OFFICE Vs. SURESH KUMAR SHUKLA S/O SHIVKUMAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act"), by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 06.01.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.194 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 19.10.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sultanpur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No.137 of 2004 and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein. By the said order, the District Forum, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in repossessing and auctioning the subject vehicle, namely, Marshal Deluxe Jeep, financed by the Petitioner, by use of muscle power and without due notice, had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant: (i) a sum of Rs. 3,20,227/-, constituting the total amount deposited by the Complainant towards the cost of the vehicle; (ii) simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of the Complaint; (iii) compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him; and, (iv) Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

(2.) When the case had come up for motion hearing on 21.04.2017, after addressing us for a while, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had sought adjournment to seek instructions as to what "appropriate steps" as pleaded before the lower Fora, were taken by the Petitioner before putting the vehicle to auction, pursuant to the notice dated 16.12.2008 issued to the Complainant. Again, as prayed, on 01.08.2017, one week's further time for the said purpose was granted to the Petitioner by way of last opportunity. When the case is now taken up for consideration, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that as per the instruction, the entire record of the case is not traceable and, therefore, the requisite information cannot been furnished to him. He, however, asserts that the auction had been conducted by the Petitioner Company in a transparent manner.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit.