Karnataka

StateCommission

A/356/2018

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohandas Rammanna Nayak - Opp.Party(s)

M.Mohan Roa

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 356/2018

 

1.  Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank      Hebri Branch,      Karkala Tq. Udupi Dist.      Rep. by its Branch Manager 2.  Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank      Regional Office,      Sri Krishna Towers,      1st Floor, Chillimbi,      Mangalore-575003 (By Sri. M. Mohan Rao) V/s	……Appellants
Mohandas Ramanna Nayak S/o. Ramanna Nayak, R/at Moorsalu, Shivapura village, Karkala Tq., Udupi Dist. (By Sri. H. Jayakara Shetty)	..…Respondent

O R D E R

BY MR. K.B. SANGANNAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2018 passed in C.C.No.47/2014  on the  file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udupi.

2. Commission examined the appeal memo and impugned order.
3. Learned Counsel for appellant would submit that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ since, vehicle purchased by complainant was bought for commercial activity. In our view such contentions could not be considered in this appeal, since the Forum below has recorded sound reasons  at Para 7 of the order and it is supported by a decision in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCCC (3) 583. It is therefore this commission did not find any grounds much less the grounds urged in the appeal memo to hold that the complainant is not a consumer and the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
4. Learned Counsel for appellant would submit that the bank, before conducting of auction, had followed procedure contemplated under law and in this regard Page 76 to 79 documents are produced along with appeal memo which in fact are already produced before forum below, wherein could see complainant has not claimed the notice sent by RPAD.  Further would submit that the vehicle was valued by approved valuer as per document No. 12 at Rs.2,83,000/- and in fact the vehicle was sold for Rs. 3,15,000/- which was the highest bid.  This document is marked as Ex.R18 during the course of enquiry.  The forum below arrived at a figure for Rs.4,96,026/- on its own without considering the valuation and the highest bid amount.  It is therefore, in our view it has to be held that this is the only error committed by the forum below, which has to be considered by the forum below. In such view of the matter in our view it would be just and proper to remand back this matter to the forum below to reconsider on  these aspects.
5.  Accordingly, we proceed to allow the appeal.  Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 passed in C.C.No.47/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udupi is set aside and remanded back to the Commission below with a direction to decide the complaint on the point of assessment of compensation as early as possible affording opportunity to both parties not later than three months.   
6. Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.

 

        JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

 

CV*