Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 23/03/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.300/2008, Mr.Mustansir M. Babrawala V/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Anr. by District Forum. Pune. Consumer complaint stood dismissed. Hence, complainant preferred this appeal.
2. Heard Mr.Amit Khairnar, Advocate for the appellant, Ms.Cashmira Nanavutty, Advocate Proxy for Mr.V. Mannadiar, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.S. Hussain, Advocate for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. In the instant case, vehicle bearing registration No.MH 12 AF 3090 was purchased through finance from respondent/opponent No.2-Standard Chartered Bank by one Ms.Eureka Dias in the month of August 2004. Since the vehicle was financed by respondent No.2-Standard Chartered Bank, registration papers of the vehicle were remained with the Bank. In the meantime, due to financial constraints, Ms.Eureka Dias sold the vehicle to complainant-Mr.Mustansir M. Babrawala with approval of the financial institution and the loan was transferred to complainant/appellant-Mr.Mustansir M. Babrawala in the year 2004 and loan account of Ms.Dias was closed. Thereafter, complainant/appellant regularly paying EMIs to the financial institution, namely, respondent/opponent No.1-ICICI Bank with whom the respondent/opponent No.2-Standard Chartered Bank has assigned the loan portfolio. In the meantime, alleging complainant is a defaulter, respondent/ICICI Bank picked up the vehicle on 26/04/2007. The action is termed as arbitrary by the complainant. This particular action is termed as deficiency in service on the part of financial institution, namely, respondent/opponent/ICICI Bank Ltd. and the consumer complaint is filed which eventually came to be dismissed as stated earlier.
4. We made inquiry from the parties what was the stand taken by respondent/opponent No.1/ICICI Bank to justify their action of picking up the vehicle on 26/04/2007. There appears no evidence adduced also on behalf of respondent/opponent No.1-ICICI Bank which remained absent. Hence, the order was passed ex-parte against them. Now at this stage, request is made to offer them opportunity so that proper case can be made out and both parties be given opportunity to lead their respective evidence and dispute can be settled accordingly. The District Forum perhaps had adopted a wrong approach by only going with the ownership as per the registration certificate. One aspect which needs to be considered that the papers remained with the financial institution which eventually transferred along with portfolio to the respondent/opponent-ICICI Bank and it is the case of the complainant that he was not handed over those vehicle papers by the financial institution and considering the nature of the deficiency alleged, it is for the ICICI Bank to justify their action of picking up the vehicle. We find that to serve the cause of substantial justice, request of the parties to remand the matter so that proper plea could be raised and by leading appropriate evidence, dispute could be settled in just and proper manner; needs to be accepted. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23/03/2010 is set aside.
2. Complaint is remitted back to the District Forum in the light of observations made in the body of the order.
3. Both parties to appear before the District Forum on 30/07/2013. If on the date of appearance, respondent/opponent-ICICI Bank filed their written version and evidence, it shall be accepted. No further opportunity be given to ICICI Bank. Thereafter, following the procedure described under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 13(2)(ii) & (4) giving an opportunity to lead evidence, the dispute be settled according to the law.
4. In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 18th June 2013.
