INDUSIND BANK LTD vs ASHOKA LEYLAND FINANCE

COUNSEL for the parties present. Arguments heard. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, the complainant took a Mini Truk (TATA 207) from the OP -Ashok Leyland Finance and others. He paid the seed money and promised to pay the remaining amount with interest in 48 instalments of Rs.9,600/ - each. The truck was obtained in July, 2005. The complainant paid the EMIs regularly. He has produced all the receipts before this Commission. I have seen the original receipts. The instalments were paid to Indusind Bank.

COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that few receipts were issued in savings Bank Account and other receipts were issued towards the loan account. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant deposited the said amount with the Indusind Bank of his own accord in his own Savings Account.

ON the other hand counsel for the complainant submits that he does not have any Savings Account. He paid the instalments in the sum of Rs.9,600/ - as per the directions given to him. He was not aware whether it was Savings Bank Account or the receipt against the loan. I have perused the receipts regarding Savings Bank Accounts. Except one receipt, all the other receipts are in the sum of Rs.9600/ - and one receipt is in the sum of Rs.10,000/ -. It is, thus clear that the complainant was taken for a ride. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he be allowed to produce the Bank''s statement of the Savings Account. The purpose of the petitioner is to delay the case unnecessarily. He wants to produce new evidence at the time of Revision. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Trial Court''s record be summoned. The case is pending since 2008. It is well settled that Justice delayed is not only Justice denied, it is also Justice circumvented, Justice mocked and the system of Justice undermined. It is difficult to fathom why did not the petitioner clarify the position before the District Forum. The receipts produced before me are duly signed and stamp of Indusind Bank appears. There can be no doubt about their genuineness. The case cannot be allowed to be delayed further. Counsel for the respondent is directed to place photocopy of these receipts on the record. Original receipts be given back to him.

IT is clear that there was no default on the part of the complainant. The legal notice, re -possession of the vehicle was just an eye -wash in order to pull the wool in the eyes of Law. It is also made clear that no Civil Suit is pending at this stage. I see no reasons for interference and the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. Revision Petition is without merit and the same is dismissed.