BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.107 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO. 869 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM-III HYDERABAD
Between:
Mr.Raj Goli S/o Gopal Krishna Chowdhary Goli
Age 30 yrs, R/o 202, Sesha Nivas, St.No.8
Sagar Society, Rd.No.2, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad-034
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. M/s TATA Motors Finance
Tata Motors Limited, Bombay House-24
Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-001
Rep. by its Manager
2. M/s Tata Motor Finance
Tata Motors Limited
Ground Floor, 1-7-195
Opp: NAN King Restaurant
Paradise, Park Lane, Secunderabad
Rep. by its Branch Manager
3. M/s Tata Motors, 104, Surya Towers
C Block, 2nd Floor, SP Road, Begumpet Police Lines
Secunderabad, HO Hyderfabad-003
Rep. by its General Manager
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.Vishweshwar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents Sri VVSN Raju
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE ELEVANTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The complainant is the appellant. He filed the complaint seeking relief for an amount `1,00,000/- with interest and `10,000/- towards costs.
2. The appellant purchased a vehicle of TATA Motors make in the month of October 2008. The vehicle was purchased on finance from TATA Motors Finance and during late November he received a call from the respondents making enquiry as to whether he had received the welcome pack along with payment schedule for which replied that he had not received and requested the respondents to send the welcome pack along with payment schedule. Meanwhile, the appellant was informed that the cheque issued by the appellant was bounced twice due to miscommunication between the respondents no.3 and the respondents no.1 and 2. In the month of June 2009 the appellant was made to sign another loan agreement. The grievance of the appellant is that he was wrongly charged twice a month for the same loan agreement and he had to go through two different agreements, two live loan accounts for one vehicle and furnish 180 cheque leaves.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has preferred the appeal contending that his counsel could not attend the District Forum on 23.12.2010 due to heavy traffic and by the time his counsel reached the District Forum, the case was called and dismissed for default. It is contended that the District Forum erroneously observed that the appellant had failed to take personal notice to the second respondent even though he has taken the notice and filed office copy of the notice along with postal receipt before the District Forum. It is submitted that the District Forum has not considered the memo filed by the counsel for the appellant.
4. The point for consideration is whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the order of the District forum?
5. The complaint filed by the appellant was posted for service of notice on the second respondent and the appellant was directed to take personal notice to the second respondent. On 23.12.2010 the District Forum has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Forum had erroneously held that personal notice was not taken by the appellant to the respondent no.2 and he has submitted that the appellant had taken the notice to the respondent no.2 and to the effect a memo was filed along with proof of dispatch of notice through registered post to the second respondent.
6. The appellant’s counsel could not reach the District Forum on 23.12.2010. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the premise that the appellant has failed to take notice to the second respondent and the District Forum has concluded that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the matter. The appellant, in fact had taken personal notice to the second respondent by sending it through registered post and in token of dispatch of the notice to the second respondent, the appellant has filed postal receipts along with memo. Unfortunately, the District Forum has failed to notice the memo and the postal receipts which would show that the notice was sent to the second respondent and the appellant was vigilant in prosecuting the case.
7. The mistake of court or tribunal should not prejudice or cause loss to any of the parties to the lis. The District Forum had by mistake observed that the appellant had not taken the notice to the second respondent through there was a memo and the postal receipt placed on record to the effect notice was dispatched to the second respondent. In the circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside the order of the District Forum and provide an opportunity to the appellant to proceed with the case.
8. In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District forum. The District forum is directed to restore the complaint to its original number. The District Forum shall dispose of the complaint within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 26.4.2012. The Registry shall send the copy of the order to the District Forum by 16.4.2012. No costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.11.04.2012
KMK*
