This order shall dispose of both the revision petitions as the facts and the question of law involved are similar/identical.  Facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.4106/2011.

-2-

Complainant/respondent purchased a truck after taking a loan of Rs.9,58,000/- from the petitioner.   Respondent repaid the loan amount in 47 installments.  No Objection Certification was not issued.  Respondent asked for issuance of No Objection Certificate which was not issued, as according to the petitioner Rs.25,980/- was still due from the respondent.  According to the respondent, he had paid Rs.31,701/- in excess.  Petitioner also claimed an amount of Rs.1,41,463.25ps. by way of interest on the delayed payment.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘The Act’). 

          State Commission reversed the order passed by the District Forum and held that the respondent was a consumer.  Instead of remitting the case back to the District Forum to take evidence and adjudicate on the dispute, the State Commission straightaway directed the petitioner to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ and also adjust the excess payment of Rs.31,701/- paid by the respondent.  Rs.50,000/- were awarded by way of compensation. 

Limited notice was issued to the respondents for 03.05.2012 to show cause as to why the impugned order of the State Commission insofar as it has decided the case on merits without permitting the

-3-

parties to lead evidence in support of their case, be not set aside and the case remitted back to the District Forum to decide it afresh on merits after taking the respondent to be a ‘Consumer’ falling within the definition of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents towards litigation expenses.

Litigation expenses were paid.  On 03.05.2012 Mr. Barun Prasad, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions.  At his request, case was adjourned to 03.08.2012 to enable him to file his vakalatnama as well as to collect the papers.  On 03.08.2012 counsel for the respondents did not appear.  Office was directed to inform the respondents as well as their counsel about the adjourned date of hearing with a note that in case they do not appear on the next date of hearing they shall be proceeded ex parte and the revision petitions disposed of in their absence.  Neither the respondents nor their counsel is present.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

District Forum had dismissed the complaint on the point of ‘Maintainability”.  District Forum had held that the complaint was not maintainable as the respondent did not fall within the definition of Consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

-4-

State Commission came to the conclusion that the respondent is a ‘Consumer’.  This finding of the State Commission is not contested by the petitioner. 

Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the District Forum had dismissed the complaint on the point of maintainability the State Commission in all fairness should have remitted the case back to the District Forum to decide it afresh after permitting the parties to lead evidence in support of their case; that the State Commission could not decide the appeal on merits without providing an opportunity to the parties to prove their case.  We find substance in this submission.  Since the District Forum had not decided the complaint on merits and had dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability only the State Commission after holding that the complaint filed by the respondent was maintainable in all fairness should have remitted the case back to the District Forum to let the parties lead their evidence in support of their respective case.  State Commission without taking evidence could not decide the case on merits on the basis of the pleadings only.

For the reasons stated above, revision petitions are allowed.  Orders of the State Commission insofar it decides the cases on merits is set aside.   It is held that the respondents are ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Cases

-5-

are remitted back to the District Forum to decide them afresh in accordance with law after permitting the parties to lead evidence in support of the case pleaded by them.

Petitioner through its counsel is directed to appear before the District Forum on 21.11.2012.

Since it is an old case we direct the District Forum to decide the complaints within a period of four months from the date of appearance.

Since the respondents are not represented, copy of this order be sent to respondents immediately to enable them to appear before the District Forum on the date fixed.