Onus To Prove Deficiency Lies With Complainant: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the onus to prove the deficiency of service against the respondent lies with the complainant. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased a vehicle from a third party who took out a loan from Mahindra Finance/Finance Company. The loan amount was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments and upon purchase, the complainant agreed to take over the remaining installments. The complainant paid an assignment fee and was responsible for future payments. However, the complainant's payments were irregular after August 2008, and he only made partial payments for some installments. The complainant initially delayed payments and presented forged receipts but later admitted his actions and apologized. On agreeing to sell the vehicle to another person, the complainant 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) but later took possession of the vehicle. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum directed the finance company to hand over the possession of the vehicle to the complainant in the same condition as it was on the date of taking forcible possession. 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. Contentions of the Finance Company 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 observed that in the case of a complaint about the repossession of a vehicle, the complainant argued that the finance company took possession of the vehicle with the help of the police, while the finance company denied any such action. The complainant relied on a police report to support their claim. However, the report only mentioned that the finance company recovered the vehicle due to unpaid installments and did not confirm any police involvement in the repossession. The report did not substantiate the complainant's claim of police assistance. The commission cited judgments to support their decision. The Supreme Court in M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari emphasized that the complainant must prove deficiency, a principle reaffirmed in PSA SICAL Terminals (P) Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin. Additionally, Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan reiterated that highly disputed factual questions fall outside the Consumer Protection Act's summary proceedings. Given the lack of evidence supporting the complainant's claim of police involvement and the admissions during the hearing, the commission allowed the petition and decided to overturn the District Forum and State Commission's orders regarding the vehicle's return or compensation. Case Title: M/S. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Singh Case Number: R.P. No. 2305/2015

Onus To Prove Deficiency Lies With Complainant: NCDRC

Ayushi Rani

Tags