KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI                                        

This is an appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, preferred against the order dated 24.06.2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, in CC No. 38/S/2022.

The appellant’s case in brief is that, the appellant has filed a complaint case claiming compensation of Rs. 6,92,206/- (Six lakh ninety-two thousand two hundred six) only, as full sale amount of the vehicle, along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh) only, for deficiency of service and Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand) only, as legal expenses, on the ground, that the vehicle which had been purchased in May 2019, had met with an accident on 11/08/2019, causing injuries to himself, as well as the vehicle being damaged. On seeking compensation, the same had been repudiated, causing mental agony and pain. That apart, the appellant’s loan agreement had been abruptly, converted to pre-payment and an advocate’s letter in the form of demand notice had been sent to him. Inspite, of repeated requests as well as the onset of the COVID pandemic, another demand notice had been sent to him, resulting in the instant case. But at the stage of admission, the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri had not admitted the case.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant preferred the instant appeal on the ground, that the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, had erred in law and facts, while passing the impugned order.

                                                                       Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the appellant at the time of final hearing, assailed the impugned order on the ground, that the Ld. Commission below had failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, as well as the provision of the Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, while passing the impugned order. The Ld. Advocate has relied on the judgments passed in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC  385, in Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. TATA Chemicals Ltd.   (2000) 5 SCC 294; in Imperia Structure Limited Vs. Anil Patni and Another (2020) 10 SCC 783, in Emaar MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh – (2019) 12 SCC 751 & Vodafone Idea Cellular Limited Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal (2022) 6 SCC 496.

Ld. Advocate for the respondent on the other hand countered that, the prayers were inconsistent with the present position of law, as the financer is the real owner having the first charge over any finance vehicle, unless the borrower repays the entire loan amount along with interest to the financer. He had also submitted, that the appellant was a willful defaulter, as he failed to repay the loan amount, it was also argued, that such failure on the part of the appellant to repay the amount, which was actually public money and therefore, the appellant was duty bound to repay the amount as per terms of the agreement. It was further argued, that the appellant was bound by the terms of the agreement and therefore, could not question the agreement at this stage. He has relied in the judgment passed in Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 704, in Charanjit Singha Chadha and Others Vrs. Sudhir Mehra (2001) 7 SCC 417, in The Managing Director, ORIX Auto Finance (India) Ltd. Vrs. Shri Jagmander Singh and Another. (2006) 2 SCC 598.

On going through the impugned order, it transpires that, the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri had not admitted the case below mainly on the ground, that the litigation was civil in nature. But the provision of Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, clearly lays down, that the act is not in derogation of any other law, but in addition to and therefore, the consumer could seek redressal of his grievances, inspite of the Forum of Civil Court being available to him. As such the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri appears to have erred while passing the impugned order. In any case at the point of admission, the only points to be considered is the point of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, as well as the point of limitation and whether the consumer falls within the meaning of the definition of consumer under the Act.

Therefore, in view of the above observation the impugned order cannot be sustained and needs to be remanded back before the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, for re-hearing on the point of admission. As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.

It is therefore,

                                             ORDERED

The instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest, but without costs.

The impugned order is hereby set aside.

The Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri is directed to re-hear on the point of admission and pass necessary orders.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, for necessary information.