Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being owner of vehicle Mahindra Max (Pick Up 2 WD) bearing Registration No.OR-16-B-2150 had obtained loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 11.3.2005 from the OPs for purchasing said vehicle. It was agreed between the parties that the complainant would repay EMI of Rs.11,500/- per instalment for 36 months. It is alleged inter alia that in spite of payment by complainant, the OPs did not issue NOC alleging that late payment charges has not been deposited by the complainant. So the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
4. OPs filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is also averred that the complainant has not cleared the entire loan amount for which question of issue of NOC does not arise. He submitted to dismiss the complaint.
5. After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
For the reasons aforesaid and under the facts and circumstances we hold that the complaint petition merit consideration and accordingly it is allowed on contest against the OPs by directing them to provide NO DUES CERTIFICATE to the complainant with compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only towards mental harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only to the complainant due to their negligence as discussed above. The OPs No.1 and 2 are further directed to repayment of the aforesaid decreed amount within 30(thirty) days of receipt of this order failing which the same amount will carry interest 09% per annum as penal interest till payment.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned District Forum, Sundargarh has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Learned District Forum ought to have considered such fact. He submitted that the agreement has not been filed and if opportunity is given, he would file the agreement to show that the complainant is entitled to pay the late payment charges. Therefore, he submitted that the entire impugned order is illegal and improper for which it should be set aside by remanding the matter to the learned District Forum for fresh disposal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant after obtaining finance from the OPs purchased the vehicle. It is also admitted fact that the loan amount has been paid but there are some late payments. It is the case of complainant that complainant agreed for late payment charges but there is no agreement filed. Unless the agreement is filed, the Forum is yet to find out whether the irregular payment is made to complainant. Apart from this, the territorial jurisdictional error must be visualized at later stage because it is a mixed question of fact and law.
9. Considering all these aspects, we are of view that the matter should be remanded to the learned District Forum where both parties are given opportunities to adduce evidence, if any and the learned District Forum shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by remand. The learned District Forum would do hear both parties and pass speaking order in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant is directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 11.7.2022 to take further instruction from it.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
