MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. vs Ambaram Patel

IN this revision petition, M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. has challenged the order of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No. 367 of 2009. The impugned order was pronounced on 26.9.2011. The revision petition has been filed on 13.4.2012, with delay of 92 days. It is sought to be explained in the application seeking its condonation, which states that - - The petitioner further states the petitioner has received order of the State Commission on 14.10.2011. Some time has been taken to get approval for the filing of the Revision Petition before this Hon''ble Commission from the head office situated at Mumbai. Time has also been taken in the office of the Advocate of the petitioner in preparation of the present Revision Petition as the documents were in vernacular language and need to be translated in English.

The petitioner therefore states that the delay in filing revision petition is neither deliberate nor intentional and has occurred in the circumstances mentioned above. The petitioner otherwise has very good case on merits and therefore prays that the delay in filing present petition may be condoned in the interest of justice.

We find this explanation very vague and non -specific. There is no ground to consider condonation of this large delay of 92 days. The revision petition therefore, merits dismissal on the ground of limitation alone.

COMING to the merits of the petition, the subject matter pertained to purchase of a tractor by the Complainant with loan assistance from the revision petitioner. Allegedly, even after repayment of loan, documents pertaining to the vehicle were not released to the Complainant. Per contra, the stand of the RP/OP was that certain amounts towards penal interest had not been paid. The District Forum allowed the complaint, holding that - - The complaint of the complainant is fortified by the statement of account dated 14.9.2005 according to which the closing balance for 31.3.2006 has been shown to be Rs. 3,12,076 and out of which the complainant has already paid Rs. 2,60,525 the balance payment has been shown to be Rs. 51,551 to be paid till 31.3.2006. As is clear from the cash receipt produced by the complainant he has paid Rs. 51,551 on 14.9.2005. Opposite party has not denied the aforesaid receipt dated 14.9.2005 nor had clarified/reconciled the same. In such situation it is proved that the complainant had taken loan of Rs. 2,20,000 which was to be paid with the finance charges totalling to Rs. 2,95,000. However, since the instalments were not paid by the complainant on time, therefore, he had paid Rs. 3,12,076 (including surcharge till 31.3.2006) on 14.9.2005 itself according to statement of account.

R.P./O.P. challenged the above order of the District Forum before the State Commission with the same contention that the N.O.C. could not be released as penal interest had not been paid. The appeal was dismissed with the observation that - - The District Forum took into account various payments and came to the conclusion that the amount had been paid by 31.3.2006 but it was paid six months advance on 14.9.2005. It was only when the matter initiated in the District Forum that subsequent demand of Rs. 79,330 was made as on 19.10.2007 and thus finding that the amount has been paid the opposite party was directed to issue N.O.C. to the complainant.

WE have heard Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner and have carefully perused the records as submitted on behalf of the petitioner.

ONE of the grounds of challenge to the impugned order is that it ignores the fact that the Complainant had admitted in his complaint that he had defaulted in the payment of instalments due to the RP/OP. However, a copy of the complaint before the District Forum, as filed with the revision petition shows that no such admission of default is made therein. On the contrary, para 7(3) of the complaint clearly states that That the applicant has repaid the last instalment and complete loan to the opposite party as on 14.9.2005, but the opposite party has still not returned the Registry Papers along with the Registration Documents and N.O.C. to the applicant. In this regard the applicant has contacted the opposite party on numerous occasions, but opposite party has been trying to delay the handing over of papers.

We, therefore, reject it as a factually incorrect contention.

It is also alleged in the revision petition that the impugned order is cryptic and not a speaking, order. Neither the revision petition nor the learned Counsel for the petitioner have made any attempt to show what material evidence has not been considered by the Fora below. From perusal of the impugned order, it is more than clear that the State Commission has adequately considered the evidence on record before confirming the order of the District Forum. From the consideration above, it is clear that the revision petition is based on contentions which are quite clearly contrary to the record. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that it is an attempt to drag the complainant/respondent in frivolous petition and thereby waste precious time of this Commission. Therefore, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed on the grounds both of limitation as well as merit. It is accordingly dismissed with punitive cost of Rs. 25,000, which shall be paid by the revision petitioner into the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central Government in terms of the provisions in Rule 10A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. This amount shall be so paid within a period of two months from the date of this order. Delay, if any, shall carry interest 10% per annum. The impugned order in F.A. No. 367 of 2009 stands confirmed.