KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 716/2018
JUDGMENT DATED: 27.06.2019
(Against the Order in C.C. 245/2017 of CDRF, Kasaragod)
PRESENT :
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
- The Chief Manager, Bajaj Finance Limited Registered office At Mumbai-Pune Road,Akurdi,Pune-411035 Maharashtra and Corporate Office at 4th Floor, Bajaj Finserv Corporate Office, Off Pune Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagar, Pune-411 014, Maharashtra Represented by its P/A Holder Ms. Jincy John.
- Bajaj Finserv Limited represented by its Manager, 1st Floor, Chandrabagi Above Yes Bank, Pillayar Kovil Road, Opposite to Kavitha Theatre, Kannur-670002 represented by its P/A Holder Ms. Jincy John.
- Bajaj Finserv limited 4th Floor, Raj Towers Balmatta Road Opposite to Hotel Roopa Manglore, Karnataka-575001 Represented by its P/A Holder Ms. Jincy John.
(By Advs. B.S. Suresh Kumar & S.M. Rajeevan)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Dr. Zakaria.K S/o Baduvan Kunhi Haji, Indira Nagar Housing Colony, Chengala (P.O), Kasaragod-671 541.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
- Vijaya Bank represented by its Manager, Kasaragod Branch, Ground Floor, Tiger Hill Building, Kasargod-671121.
JUDGMENT
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The opposite parties 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 245/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod, in short the District Forum, has filed the appeal against the Order passed by the District Forum by which they were directed to pay Rs. 4,23,219/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation together with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant.
2. Complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Even though 4th opposite party Vijaya Bank is made as a party in the complaint no relief is sought against them. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties 1 to 3 collected excess amount from his account and also collected pre-closure charges against the agreement made between him and opposite parties 1 to 3. Complainant has filed the complaint claiming Rs. 14,23,219/- against opposite parties 1 to 3.
3. Even though notices were served on the opposite parties they failed to appear before the District Forum. Hence they were set ex-parte. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents produced by him were marked as Exts. A1 to A11. Considering the evidence adduced by the complainant the District Forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, the opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed the present appeal.
4. Respondent appeared. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
5. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants/opposite parties have not received any notice from the District Forum and hence they did not appear before the Forum. The appellants came to know about the matter only when they received the copy of the Order from the District Forum. He submitted that there was no wilful latches or negligence on the part of the appellants/opposite parties and an opportunity may be given to the appellants to raise their contentions by filing version and to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
6. On going through the proceedings paper of the District Forum it is seen that on 14.06.2018 it is written as “All opposite parties served notice, but not turned up. Name of all opposite parties called, absent, set exparte. Posted for exparte evidence on 23.07.2018”. On verification of the records of the District Forum no acknowledgement card regarding service of the notice of the complaint to the opposite parties or the returned cover containing notice to the opposite parties are not seen. However the records contain the acknowledgment cards signed by the opposite parties regarding service of notice to them in I.A. 329/2017 filed by the complainant. So it can be seen that the opposite parties have knowledge of the pendency of the complaint against them before the District Forum and they cannot contend that they were not aware of the proceedings.
7. We do not find merit in the submission of the counsel for the appellants regarding the default committed by the appellants in appearing before the District Forum and filing version. However, after perusing the records and the Order passed by the District Forum, we consider that an opportunity has to be given to the opposite parties/appellants to contest the case, to file version and to adduce evidence in support of their contention, to have a decision in the complaint on merits. For that purpose, the Order passed by the District Forum is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal.
8. Remission of the case, setting aside the Order of the District Forum can be ordered only on terms directing the appellants to compensate the injury likely to be caused by the delay in culmination of the proceedings to the 1st respondent/complainant. The appellants have to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st respondent as a condition for setting aside the Order of the District Forum and remission of the case.
9. The 1st respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- ordered as cost from the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing appeal, on filing proper application to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered as cost. Release the balance amount to the appellants, on proper application.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal, after giving opportunity to the appellants/opposite parties to file version and to adduce evidence in support of their contention, if any. The District Forum shall dispose of the complaint as early as possible.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Send back the records to the District Forum, forthwith.
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
