KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 12/2023
ORDER DATED: 20.02.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 20/2021 of CDRC, Kannur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- Nodal Officer, HDFC Bank, Cordial Residency Tower, Opposite Kurups Lane, Sasthamangalam South, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010. (Principal Officer representing HDFC Bank).
- Regional Manager, HDFC Bank, Simax Tower Kannur Road, West Nadakkavu, Kozhikode-673 011.
- Manager Operations, Loan Department, HDFC Bank, KVR Tower, South Bazar, Kannur.
(By Adv. T.L. Sreeram)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.T. Baiju, S/o late Gangadharan, Ambili Villa, Near High School P.O., Muzhappilangad, Kannur-670 662.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The opposite parties in C.C. No. 20/2021 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (District Commission for short) are in revision against an order dated 31.10.2022 in I.A. No. 202/2022. The petition was filed by the revision petitioners challenging the maintainability of the complaint. According to them, the complainant who is the respondent herein is not a consumer as defined in Sec. 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act for short) and that the complaint was barred by limitation.
2. The complaint was filed by the respondent against the opposite parties claiming an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses, alleging deficiency in service on their part. The father of the complainant had purchased a vehicle, availing a vehicle loan from the revision petitioners. The said loan was closed by his father, availing the one time settlement on 31.12.2011. After the death of his father, though the complainant requested for the issue of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to him for transferring the vehicle to his name, the revision petitioners raised objections and did not issue the same. The complainant therefore had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by filing a writ petition. The High Court directed the revision petitioners to issue the NOC as sought for and finally it was issued only on 10.08.2020. It was thereafter only on 26.09.2020 that the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL 13Q 9097 was transferred to his name. In the mean time from the year 2011 onwards the vehicle was remaining idle. The complainant claimed that he was entitled to be compensated for the damage caused to the vehicle and mental agony, all of which were attributed to deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioners. In order to prove the damage caused to the vehicle, an expert commission was taken out and report has also been obtained. It was in the above circumstances that the revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 202/2022 questioning the maintainability of the complaint. The District Commission considered the contentions on the merits. The complaint was found to be maintainable and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala it has been found that the complainant was a consumer under the Act and that the complaint was not barred by limitation. According to the revision petitioners, the order of the District Commission is wrong and liable to be set aside.
3. According to Adv. T.L. Sreeram who appears for the revision petitioners, though the respondent/complainant had filed a writ petition challenging the stand of the revision petitioners in refusing to issue the NOC, the Single Bench had dismissed the same accepting the contentions of the revision petitioners. However, on an appeal filed by the complainant, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Bench and directed the issue of NOC to the complainant. It was due to the pendency of the legal proceedings that the delay had occurred and not due to any act on the part of the revision petitioners. It is contended that the revision petitioners cannot be penalized for having resorted to the legal remedies available to them. It is also contended that, the finding regarding maintainability of the complaint is also erroneous and liable to be set aside.
4. This revision comes up before us for admission. We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioners, at length. It is not disputed that the vehicle loan availed by the complainant’s father had been closed on 31.12.2011. Thereafter, though the complainant approached the revision petitioners for the issue of an NOC for the purpose of transferring the vehicle to his name, the same was not issued. The stand of the revision petitioners was that there were other financial commitments of his father that required to be settled. The said stand has been found to be wrong and unsustainable by the Hon’ble High Court. The contention that the Single Bench had decided in favour of the bank, is of no consequence since the Division Bench has set aside the judgment of the Single Bench finding that it was wrong. Therefore the position of law with respect to the stand of the revision petitioners is that their stand was wrong, from the inception, which has been declared by the Division Bench. It was because the revision petitioners had taken a wrong stand that the complainant had to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and pursue the litigation up to the Division Bench. The revision petitioners therefore cannot shirk the responsibility for the delay that has been caused by the legal proceedings. The fact remains that the complainant could not transfer the vehicle to his name or use the same though the loan availed for its purchase had been closed. In these circumstances, no fault could be attributed to the complainant for the resultant consequences. The vehicle has suffered damage in the meantime due to disuse, it is alleged. The question as to whether the revision petitioners are liable for the damage has therefore, to be decided in the proceedings pending before the District Commission. The above being the factual backdrop, the contention that the revision petitioners are being penalized for resorting to their legal remedies cannot be accepted.
5. The District Commission has found that the complaint was maintainable since the vehicle was transferred to his name only on 26.09.2020. The complaint was filed immediately thereafter. The damage if any, as alleged, was being caused during each day of the delay in issuing the NOC to the complainant, which came to an end only when the same was issued. Therefore the claim of the complainant could have been quantified only from the said date. The complainant who has been found to be a person who had stepped into the shoes of his father was certainly entitled to seek and the revision petitioners were bound to issue the NOC as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Therefore, the respondent is without doubt, a consumer within the definition of consumer under Sec. 2(7) of the Act.
For the above reasons, we find no infirmity in the order of the District Commission warranting an interference in revision. This revision is therefore dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
