BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Tulsi Dass, aged 32 years, s/o Sh.Chhedi Lal, Resident of House no. 209, Indira Colony and Office of Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Delhi Financial Corporation, through its authorized signatory, Plot No. 182/19, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

2]Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, Sector 17, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Davinder Lubana, Advocate for complainant.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                    According to the complainant he took the loan of Rs.1,16,000/- from OP-1 on 24.06.2003 for the purchase of autorickshaw. He gave the FDR of Rs.35,000/- as a security and when he did not pay back the amount, they took possession of the vehicle on 25.08.2006. The Fixed Deposit of Rs.22,000/- is also said to have been got enchased by them.  According to him tentatively Rs.79,343/- appears to be due from him regarding which he has now received a notice dated 30.01.2009 now marked Annexure C-14 from the Collector, Grade I, Delhi Financial Corporation, Chandigarh.  The complainant has filed the present complaint asking for “No Objection Certificate” of the loan, Rs.50,000/- as damages as cost, Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony, Rs.7,700/- as costs of litigation and a direction to the OP-2 ,where the complaint is employed not to attach his salary.

2.             It is pertinent to mention that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic.  The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

3.             The complainant was given opportunity to produce evidence/document in support of his contentions.

4.              We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have perused the record.

5.             The loan was taken by the complainant in 2003.  The vehicle was taken in possession by the OP No.1 on 25.08.2008 for non-payment of the installments vide Annexure C-11.  The present complaint to challenge the said seizure is therefore barred by time. 

6.             The complainant is now challenging Annexure C-13 and C-14.  Annexure C-13 is the order issued by Sh.K.K. Jain, Collector, Grade I, Delhi Financial Corporation, Chandigarh to attach the salary of the complainant who is working as peon with the Municipal Corporation.   Annexure C-14 is the warrant of attachment showing that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.79,343/- and therefore his salary was ordered to be attached.  The Consumer Fora is not competent to hear an Appeal or Revision against the attachment made by the Collector. In order to get the attachment vacated the complainant is to approach the Collector under the relevant provisions of law.

7.              It is now clear from the order Annexure C-14 itself, that a sum of Rs.79,343/- was due from the complainant.  It is not a case if he had paid back the said amount.  Unless he pays the amount in full to the OP-1 alongwith interest and cost, he is not entitled to the “No Objection Certificate” as demanded by him through this complaint.  If the amount is not paid, this Forum cannot give any direction contrary to that of the Collector for attaching his salary.  In this manner the relief number 2 as claimed by the complainant also cannot be granted by this Forum.  The complainant has prayed Rs.50,000/- as damages  and Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony.  Since the complainant is a defaulter, he had taken the loan but has not repaid the same, the fault therefore lies with him and not with the OP-1, who is entitled to recover the amount from the complainant.  The complainant is not therefore entitled to any amount of damages as cost or for harassment and mental agony.  The complainant is therefore misconceived and is an abuse of  the process of law.  This is a false and frivolous complaint designed to put pressure on the OPs and for such complainants the Legislature has enacted section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act to rein them in.  We however take a lenient view against the complainant and do not impose the cost on him.

8.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that it is a false and frivolous complaint and cannot be admitted for regular hearing.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed in limine.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.