Date of filing: | 16.06.2023 |
Date of disposal: | 12.07.2023 |
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 12.07.2023
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1119/2023
Union Bank of India (formerly Corporation Bank), Pune-Dapodi Branch, Ganesh Heights, Ground Floor, Ganesh Puram, Dapadi, Pune-411012, Rep. by Manager. (Advocate – Sri.Satyanarayana) | …..Appellant/s. |
V/s |
1) Sri. H.V. Vishwanath, Aged About 47 years, S/o. Mr. Vasudevaraj, No.841, First Main, Gokulam 3rd Stage, Cantoor Road, Mysore-570002. Rep. by his GPA holder Smt. Suma. 2) Sri. Sachin N. Mohan, S/o.Mr. Nandakumar, Aged about 38 Years, Resident of lane No.8, Lakshmi Nagar, Pimple, Gurur, Pune-410061, Also at GAT No.131, Hissa No.20, Adhale Village & Post, Maval Taluk, Pune District, Maharashtra State-410507. 3) My Car (Pune) Pvt. Ltd., Sr. No.131, Hissa No.2/3/4/6/1,3,5,6, Mumbai-Bangalore Road, Pune Bypass, Near Wakad Police Chowki, Wakad, Pune-411057, Maharashtra State. 4) M/s. Hassan Security & Detective Services, D.No.1026, Opp. Shiva Wooden Furniture, 7th Cross, Shankar Mutt Road, K.R.Puram, Hassan-573201, Karnataka State. | …..Respondent/s. |
ORDER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT
01. The matter is set for hearing on admission. Appellant is an opposite party No.3 in C.C. No.1543/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore.
02. Respondent No.1 Mr. H.V. Viswanath is the complainant, Respondent No.2 Mr. Sachin N Mohan is the opposite party No.1, Respondent No.3 My Car (Pune) Private Limited is the opposite party No.2, Respondent No.4 M/s. Hassan Security and Detective Services is the opposite party No.4.
03. Learned counsel for Appellant submits Rs.3,62,500/- is a deposit made by Appellant/opposite party No.3 to consider their Appeal.
04. Commission heard Learned counsel, perused the impugned order, grounds of Appeal and order dated: 18.03.2022 passed in Appeal No.2257/2016 of this Commission, wherein Appeal filed by the opposite party No.3/Appellant herein was allowed by setting aside the order dated: 30.06.2016 passed in C.C. No.1543/2014 with a direction to readmit the case and to afford opportunity to both the parties.
05. Learned counsel would submit that, the State Commission in the order dated: 18.03.2022, while remanding back the matter to District Commission by the end of Para-4 specifically observed to decide on the point of relationship of consumer and service provider between parties was not considered by the Commission below has some considerable force. Even in our view the Commission below failed to formulate a point on relationship of consumer and service providers, in between the parties to the complaint, in other words such relationship between complainant and opposite party No.2, complainant and opposite party No.3 and complainant and opposite party No.4 respectively. We also found in Para-21, complainant is the bonafide purchaser without knowing the borrow of loan by the 1st opposite party from 3rd opposite party and without knowing the fact of hypothecation deed, neither the registration number nor the engine and chassis number of the vehicle is mentioned. The 3rd opposite party illegally seized the vehicle from the bonafide purchaser in good faith. The 2nd opposite party has clearly stated that, 3rd opposite party has not informed him about the borrowing of loan and about the hypothecation of the vehicle.
06. Further in Para-22 the 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party committed deficiency in service in not intimating the RTO about the hypothecation. Whether this could be examined by Commission below under Consumer Law has not been decided by the Commission below before passing the impugned order. The Commission below observed, complainant had purchased the vehicle directly from 1st opposite party, but due to negligence and deficiency and mistake of 2nd and 3rd opposite party the complainant put in to hardship. The complainant had purchased the vehicle without knowledge of hypothecation. The 4th opposite party illegally seized the vehicle from the lawful owner instead of proceeding against the 1st opposite party who is the defaulter. Now, question arises, whether such opposite parties arrayed in the complaint are come within the definition of service provider. In other words whether complainant is a consumer to these opposite parties is a moot question to be decide by the Commission below and such question is unanswered.
07. Further to be noted herein that, Commission below allowed the complaint as a whole against all the parties and directed all the opposite parties to refund Rs.6,50,000/- which was the price paid by the complainant to opposite party No.1 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the complaint till passing order and directed all parties shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and pay cost of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses and held opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount so awarded within two months from the date of passing of the order. Failing which shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount so awarded from the date of order till its realization. Whether this could be maintainable as against all or whether opposite party Nos.2 to 4 are amenable to complainant filed by the complainant in respect of the vehicle bearing registration no. MH-14 DT-9625 purchased from OP No.1, without deciding on the points stated above. Since the Commission below committed errors in passing the impugned order despite giving a specific direction in Appeal No.2257/2016 dated: 18.03.2022 as such it does call for an interference.
08. Issuance of Appeal notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 is hereby dispensed with to avoid further delay and the delay if any caused to prefer this Appeal stands condoned for the reasons sworn in by Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma in his affidavit enclosed to the I.A. Accordingly Appeal No.1119/2023 filed U/S 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is allowed. Consequently set aside the order dated: 18.04.2023 passed in C.C. No.1543/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore, with a direction to re-admit again and decide the case as observed in the order dated: 18.03.2022 passed in Appeal No.2253/2016 and also as observed in this Appeal. The Commission below is directed to decide the complaint as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of the order. The parties to the complaint are directed to assist the Commission to decide the case in accordance with law.
09. The amount kept in deposit by the appellant shall be permitted to withdraw by the appellant.
10. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.
LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
KNMP*
