BiplabNayak
New member
- Bank Name
- Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
- Customer Care Number
- 02265434100
- Loss Amount
- 50000
- Ratings
- Opposite Party Address
- Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
2nd Floor, NH 27
Opposite Hotel Monarch Aachal
Bara Mohansingh
Shiv Mandir
Siliguri, Darjeeling
West Bengal 734011
Respected Sir/Madam,
I, Mr. Biplab Nayak, husband of Mrs. Ritu Chakraborty, residing at Adda-Dayaramjote, Naxalbari – 734429, wish to lodge a formal complaint regarding the repossession of my vehicle bearing Registration No. WB74AT4817, financed by Mahindra Finance under Loan Agreement No. 8926414.
This complaint is being submitted to seek an independent investigation and justice for the mental harassment, financial hardship and procedural irregularities that I have suffered.
On 04 July 2026, at approximately 10:00 AM, after collecting my vehicle from the service centre, I parked it on the main road near Ghoramore and went for some personal work along with my elder brother. When I returned, I found that my vehicle was missing.
After receiving several missed calls, I contacted Mahindra Finance representative Mr. Pijus Mondal (Mobile: 7477691257), who informed me that the vehicle had been taken by a recovery team engaged by Mahindra Finance.
I was shocked because no one from the recovery team contacted me at the spot, no seizure memo or repossession document was handed over to me, no inventory of the vehicle was prepared in my presence and I was not provided any acknowledgement regarding the repossession.
I had already informed Mahindra Finance about my road accident and my temporary financial hardship. Due to the accident, I was unable to work for some time and consequently three EMIs became overdue. However, after recovering financially, I resumed making EMI payments and continued paying the loan without any follow-up from the company.
When I contacted Mr. Pijus Mondal, he informed me that nothing could be done immediately and that I would have to pay the outstanding dues together with recovery charges. He advised me to visit the Shivmandir Branch.
Accordingly, I visited the Shivmandir Branch where I met Branch Manager Mr. Somnath Kundu (Mobile: 9564441666). Instead of hearing my grievance, I was allegedly told that if I believed the repossession was illegal, I was free to take legal action and that the company's legal team would handle the matter. When I politely requested him to explain my fault as a customer despite having informed the company about my accident and despite resuming EMI payments, I did not receive any satisfactory explanation.
I further requested a copy of the seizure documents. I informed him that I had not received any seizure memo or repossession copy. Instead of providing the requested documents, I was allegedly told that if no documents had been given to me, I could lodge a complaint that my vehicle had been stolen.
Following this advice, I approached NJP Police Station. However, my complaint was not formally registered at that stage and I was referred to the field officers. The police officers visited the spot and reportedly called upon the recovery agency to appear. Despite waiting the entire day, no representative of the recovery agency appeared.
On the following day, after further communication by the police, Mahindra Finance Legal Team representative Mr. Souvik (Mobile: 7063283986) appeared. I explained the entire incident to him. He informed me that since three EMIs were pending, the vehicle had been repossessed.
I respectfully asked whether a finance company is legally entitled to remove a customer's vehicle from a public place without the owner's presence, without handing over repossession documents, and despite the customer having resumed EMI payments after informing the company about temporary financial hardship.
During the discussion, I offered to immediately clear two EMIs if my vehicle was released. However, I was referred back to the Branch Manager. I was allegedly informed that because I had approached the police, I should now recover my vehicle through the police and that recovery charges would also have to be paid.
Subsequently, I again visited the Shivmandir Branch to obtain a copy of my loan agreement because the mobile application was not allowing me to download it. Another branch official informed my wife and me that they did not have the required records and advised us either to obtain them through the legal team or to contact Mr. Somnath Kundu.
Thereafter, I visited the Burdwan Road office and met Mr. Souvik, who provided details showing that the first notice had allegedly been issued on 16 September 2024 and the second notice on 18 August 2025.
However, after those notices, I continued paying my EMIs and did not receive any further repossession notice or communication before my vehicle was taken on 04 July 2026.
Another serious concern is that the recovery documents supplied by DAS Associates reportedly mention "Refused to Sign." I respectfully state that if I was not present at the vehicle at the time of repossession, I fail to understand how any refusal to sign could have been recorded. This discrepancy requires an independent investigation.
Furthermore, during my discussion with Mr. Souvik, I was informed that recovery agencies are expected to intimate the police before carrying out repossession. However, when I approached the police station, I was informed that no such prior intimation was available with them. Mr. Souvik himself stated that if the recovery agency had failed to provide the required police intimation before repossession, the company could take action against the recovery agency.
I respectfully request your office to investigate these conflicting facts.
I would also like to place on record that all the original documents relating to the vehicle, including the original Registration Certificate, insurance papers, both original keys and other important documents, remain physically in my possession. Therefore, I respectfully request clarification as to how the recovery agency identified, repossessed and removed my vehicle from a public road without my presence and without obtaining possession of these original documents.
As per the Reserve Bank of India's Fair Practices Code applicable to NBFCs, repossession must be carried out strictly in accordance with the legally enforceable loan agreement, which should clearly specify the notice period, the repossession procedure, the circumstances under which notice may be waived, and the borrower's opportunity to repay before further action is taken. The Supreme Court of India has also repeatedly held that recovery cannot be carried out through force, intimidation or other unlawful self-help methods merely because a borrower has defaulted.
I therefore request that Mahindra Finance immediately conduct an independent inquiry and provide me with:
Certified copies of every repossession notice allegedly issued.
Certified copy of the seizure memo/panchanama.
Recovery agent authorisation letter.
Police intimation allegedly sent before repossession.
GPS logs, photographs and videography of the repossession, if available.
Inventory prepared at the time of repossession.
Explanation regarding the "Refused to Sign" endorsement.
The legal basis under which my vehicle was removed from a public road in my absence.
I also request appropriate action against every person found responsible if any mandatory legal or contractual procedure was not followed.
If I do not receive a satisfactory response within a reasonable time, I shall be constrained to pursue all remedies available to me before the appropriate Consumer Commission, civil courts and other competent authorities, along with any other remedies available under applicable law.
I trust that the matter will be investigated fairly and impartially.
Yours faithfully,
Biplab Nayak
Loan Agreement No.: 8926414
Vehicle No.: WB74AT4817
I, Mr. Biplab Nayak, husband of Mrs. Ritu Chakraborty, residing at Adda-Dayaramjote, Naxalbari – 734429, wish to lodge a formal complaint regarding the repossession of my vehicle bearing Registration No. WB74AT4817, financed by Mahindra Finance under Loan Agreement No. 8926414.
This complaint is being submitted to seek an independent investigation and justice for the mental harassment, financial hardship and procedural irregularities that I have suffered.
On 04 July 2026, at approximately 10:00 AM, after collecting my vehicle from the service centre, I parked it on the main road near Ghoramore and went for some personal work along with my elder brother. When I returned, I found that my vehicle was missing.
After receiving several missed calls, I contacted Mahindra Finance representative Mr. Pijus Mondal (Mobile: 7477691257), who informed me that the vehicle had been taken by a recovery team engaged by Mahindra Finance.
I was shocked because no one from the recovery team contacted me at the spot, no seizure memo or repossession document was handed over to me, no inventory of the vehicle was prepared in my presence and I was not provided any acknowledgement regarding the repossession.
I had already informed Mahindra Finance about my road accident and my temporary financial hardship. Due to the accident, I was unable to work for some time and consequently three EMIs became overdue. However, after recovering financially, I resumed making EMI payments and continued paying the loan without any follow-up from the company.
When I contacted Mr. Pijus Mondal, he informed me that nothing could be done immediately and that I would have to pay the outstanding dues together with recovery charges. He advised me to visit the Shivmandir Branch.
Accordingly, I visited the Shivmandir Branch where I met Branch Manager Mr. Somnath Kundu (Mobile: 9564441666). Instead of hearing my grievance, I was allegedly told that if I believed the repossession was illegal, I was free to take legal action and that the company's legal team would handle the matter. When I politely requested him to explain my fault as a customer despite having informed the company about my accident and despite resuming EMI payments, I did not receive any satisfactory explanation.
I further requested a copy of the seizure documents. I informed him that I had not received any seizure memo or repossession copy. Instead of providing the requested documents, I was allegedly told that if no documents had been given to me, I could lodge a complaint that my vehicle had been stolen.
Following this advice, I approached NJP Police Station. However, my complaint was not formally registered at that stage and I was referred to the field officers. The police officers visited the spot and reportedly called upon the recovery agency to appear. Despite waiting the entire day, no representative of the recovery agency appeared.
On the following day, after further communication by the police, Mahindra Finance Legal Team representative Mr. Souvik (Mobile: 7063283986) appeared. I explained the entire incident to him. He informed me that since three EMIs were pending, the vehicle had been repossessed.
I respectfully asked whether a finance company is legally entitled to remove a customer's vehicle from a public place without the owner's presence, without handing over repossession documents, and despite the customer having resumed EMI payments after informing the company about temporary financial hardship.
During the discussion, I offered to immediately clear two EMIs if my vehicle was released. However, I was referred back to the Branch Manager. I was allegedly informed that because I had approached the police, I should now recover my vehicle through the police and that recovery charges would also have to be paid.
Subsequently, I again visited the Shivmandir Branch to obtain a copy of my loan agreement because the mobile application was not allowing me to download it. Another branch official informed my wife and me that they did not have the required records and advised us either to obtain them through the legal team or to contact Mr. Somnath Kundu.
Thereafter, I visited the Burdwan Road office and met Mr. Souvik, who provided details showing that the first notice had allegedly been issued on 16 September 2024 and the second notice on 18 August 2025.
However, after those notices, I continued paying my EMIs and did not receive any further repossession notice or communication before my vehicle was taken on 04 July 2026.
Another serious concern is that the recovery documents supplied by DAS Associates reportedly mention "Refused to Sign." I respectfully state that if I was not present at the vehicle at the time of repossession, I fail to understand how any refusal to sign could have been recorded. This discrepancy requires an independent investigation.
Furthermore, during my discussion with Mr. Souvik, I was informed that recovery agencies are expected to intimate the police before carrying out repossession. However, when I approached the police station, I was informed that no such prior intimation was available with them. Mr. Souvik himself stated that if the recovery agency had failed to provide the required police intimation before repossession, the company could take action against the recovery agency.
I respectfully request your office to investigate these conflicting facts.
I would also like to place on record that all the original documents relating to the vehicle, including the original Registration Certificate, insurance papers, both original keys and other important documents, remain physically in my possession. Therefore, I respectfully request clarification as to how the recovery agency identified, repossessed and removed my vehicle from a public road without my presence and without obtaining possession of these original documents.
As per the Reserve Bank of India's Fair Practices Code applicable to NBFCs, repossession must be carried out strictly in accordance with the legally enforceable loan agreement, which should clearly specify the notice period, the repossession procedure, the circumstances under which notice may be waived, and the borrower's opportunity to repay before further action is taken. The Supreme Court of India has also repeatedly held that recovery cannot be carried out through force, intimidation or other unlawful self-help methods merely because a borrower has defaulted.
I therefore request that Mahindra Finance immediately conduct an independent inquiry and provide me with:
Certified copies of every repossession notice allegedly issued.
Certified copy of the seizure memo/panchanama.
Recovery agent authorisation letter.
Police intimation allegedly sent before repossession.
GPS logs, photographs and videography of the repossession, if available.
Inventory prepared at the time of repossession.
Explanation regarding the "Refused to Sign" endorsement.
The legal basis under which my vehicle was removed from a public road in my absence.
I also request appropriate action against every person found responsible if any mandatory legal or contractual procedure was not followed.
If I do not receive a satisfactory response within a reasonable time, I shall be constrained to pursue all remedies available to me before the appropriate Consumer Commission, civil courts and other competent authorities, along with any other remedies available under applicable law.
I trust that the matter will be investigated fairly and impartially.
Yours faithfully,
Biplab Nayak
Loan Agreement No.: 8926414
Vehicle No.: WB74AT4817