Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/788

ICICI BANK LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARVIND KUMAR. PANWAR - Opp.Party(s)

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                   Date of Decision: 19.11.2015

First Appeal No. 788/2010

(Arising out of the order dated 27.04.2010 passed in complaint case No. 191/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (New Delhi) Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001)

In the matter of:

ICICI Bank Ltd.

Videocon Tower, 2^nd Floor

Block e-1, Jhandewalan Extn.

New Delhi-110005                                                          Appellant

 

Versus

 

Sh. Arvind Kumar Panwar

S/o Sh. Ajet Panwar

R/o B-255, Deen Dayald Puri

Nand Gram

Ghaziabad-201001                                                         Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                    -                       Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                             -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

Judgement

1.      Appellant has impugned the orders dt. 27.04.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum-VI. In brief, the complainant/respondent took a loan of Rs. 4,84,000/- from the OP/appellant on 01.11.2006 to purchase a vehicle ‘Tavera’. Total cost of the vehicle was Rs. 6.5 lacs. Complainant made a down payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Loan was repayable in thirty five monthly instalments of Rs. 16,748/- each. Complainant contended that he paid few instalments regularly. His mother fell ill and he committed default in making payment of the instalments. Contention of the complainant is that the muscle men of the OP forcibly took away the vehicle in question on 28.02.2008. Grievance of the complainant was that the OP demanded from him an amount of Rs. 4,64,904/- though he had paid twelve monthly instalments to the OP. On request for return of the vehicle, complainant was informed that his vehicle stood sold.
2.      OP/appellant herein was proceeded against ex-parte. It was observed by the Ld. District Forum that the OP/appellant refused to receive the ‘dasti’ summons. Ld. District Forum relied upon the affidavit filed by the clerk of the complainant’s counsel.
3.      We have perused the records of the Ld. District Forum. Complaint was filed on 17.02.2010. On the very first date notice was directed to be issued to the OP ‘dasti’. No other mode of service was resorted to. Complainant filed affidavit to the effect that the OP had refused to accept the notice. It was on the basis of the said affidavit sworn by the clerk of the complainant’s counsel that the Ld. District Forum proceeded against OP/appellant ex-parte. It is not clear as to what were the circumstances in which the Ld. District Forum issued notice ‘dasti’ on the very first date. Why the notice was not sent by ordinary post, registered post or courier has not been made clear. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the OP/appellant herein was not duly served. Orders dt. 27.04.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum are hence set aside. Matter is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the case on merits. Appellant herein is directed to file its written version in the District Forum on the next date itself. Appellant to appear in the District Forum on 15.12.2015. Ld. District Forum may be issue notice to the complainant and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
4.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
5.      One copy be sent to the District Forum concerned.
6.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

(S C JAIN)

MEMBER