BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Friday, the 27th day of April 2018
First Appeal No.2 / 2017 in
M.P.No.19/2016 in C.C.No.31/2013
HDFC Bank, represented by its
Authorised Signatory Saravanajothy
No.4&5, Vallalar Salai, Abirami Plaza,
45 Feet Road, Puducherry – 605 011
… Petitioner / Appellant
vs
1. M. Sivagangai
… Respondent / Complainant
2. The Authorised Signatory
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited
6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road
Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 059.
… Respondent / OP1
3. The Authorised Signatory
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited
No.23, City Towers, 100 Feet Road, Puducherry.
… Respondent /OP3
(On appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry passed in M.P. No. 19 / 2016 in C.C. 31 / 2013 dated 11.05.2016)
In M.P.No.19/2016 in C.C.No.31/2013
M. Sivagangai
… Petitioner / Complainant
Vs
The Authorised Signatory
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited
6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road
Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 059.
2. The Branch Manager
HDFC Bank Limited, Retail Assets Division,
No.4&5, Vallalar Salai, Abirami Plaza
45 feet road, Puducherry – 605 011.
3. The Authorised Signatory
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited
No.23, City Towers, 100 Feet Road, Puducherry.
… Respondent s/Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE JUSTICE THIRU K. VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
Thiru S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru T.N. Anandan, Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Thiru I. Ilankumar, Advocate for R1
Thiru K. Ravikumar, Advocate for R2 and R3.
O R D E R
(By Justice Thiru K. Venkataraman, President)
The second opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry has filed the present appeal questioning the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry in M.P. 19 / 2016 dated 11.05.2016 in C.C. 31 / 2013.
2. The second opposite party thereon is the appellant herein and the complainant and Opposite Parties 1 and 3 are the respondents.
3. The parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum, Puducherry.
4. The complainant before the District Forum, Puducherry sought for a direction to handover to him the car seized by the second opposite party during pendency of the complaint. It is the case of the complainant that the second opposite party has seized the Ford Figo Car bearing Regn. No. PY 01 BE 7278 with the help of anti-social elements on 15.12.2015 which belonged to the complainant after filing reply version knowingly that the complaint is pending before the District Forum, Puducherry. It is a clear abuse of process of law.
5. The Opposite Parties 1 and 3 have not filed any counter and endorsed no objection for allowing the application. The second opposite party has not chosen to file counter in the said application preferred by the complainant, but endorsed objection saying that the matter does not come under the purview of the District Forum, Puducherry.
6. The District Forum, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has allowed the application preferred by the complainant for handing over the car seized by the second opposite party from the complainant.
7. The said order is under challenge in the present appeal by the second opposite party.
8. We have perused the entire files, heard the learned Counsel appearing for the second opposite party and the Counsel appearing for the complainant. We have also perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the second opposite party and the complainant.
9. The second opposite party in the grounds of appeal has put forth the following points:
a) The guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India have been strictly followed while repossessing the vehicle;
b) The second opposite party had issued proper notice before selling the seized vehicle and post selling the vehicle;
c) Proper instructions were given to the earlier Counsel on record by the second opposite party herein to file proper counter in the said M.P. 19 / 2016, but for the reasons best known to the earlier Counsel appearing for the second opposite party, counter was not filed. Therefore, the second opposite party has appointed a new Counsel to defend further the proceedings in C.C. 31 / 2013.
d) The Authorised Signatory of the second opposite party has appeared before the District Forum with counter on 11.5.2016 but the Hon'ble District Forum failed to accept the same and passed an erroneous order allowing the application.
10. During the course of the oral argument, the Counsel appearing for the second opposite party put forth the same set of defence.
11. In the written arguments, it is stated on behalf of the second opposite party that once the vehicle has been sold to another person the said person under legal rights, has been in his possession from 08.01.2016 to the date of order i.e. 11.05.2016 and when the buyer has changed the ownership of the vehicle and insurance in his name, how it is legally possible for the second opposite party to hand over the vehicle to the complainant.
12. We have carefully considered the points raised on behalf of the second opposite party. However, we are unable to persuade ourselves to the said contentions raised on behalf of the second opposite party for the following reasons:
i) In Para 4 of the Grounds of Appeal, the second opposite party has blamed Counsel for not filing the counter. Even assuming that the Counsel has not filed the counter, though he was instructed to file the counter, the remedy available to the second opposite party is only to take action against the said Advocate and nothing more.
ii) When, in the first part of para 4 of the Grounds of Appeal, it was stated that though the Counsel was instructed to file the counter, he has not filed the counter, however, in the latter part of para 4, it is stated that the Authorised Signatory of the second opposite party has appeared before the District Forum with Counter, but the District Forum failed to accept the same and passed an erroneous order allowing the M.P. 19 / 2016 without any basis. Thus, a contradictory statement has been made in the grounds of appeal.
iii) It is stated that the second opposite party has followed the Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India while repossessing the vehicle. However, no documentary proof has been filed either before the District Forum or before us saying that the Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India has been strictly followed by the second opposite party while repossessing the vehicle. In the absence of any documentary evidence, we are unable to accept the contention raised on the side of the second opposite party that after strictly following the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, the vehicle has been repossessed by the second opposite party.
iv) When it is the case of the second opposite party that the vehicle in question has been sold to a third party, the second opposite party is expected to file documents for the same. It is not even stated who has purchased the property and when ownership of the vehicle and insurance have been changed in the name of the alleged new buyer. No document has been filed either before the District Forum or before us to substantiate the said plea. In the absence of any documentary evidence, we are unable to accept the said contentions raised at the ends of the second opposite party.
v) It is stated that the vehicle in question has been sold after due notice to the complainant. However, no such documents has been filed to substantiate the same.
13. For all the reasons set out, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum directing the second opposite party to hand over the vehicle to the complainant herein does not deserve any reconsideration at our end.
14. In fine, the appeal stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 27th day of April 2018.
(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
