ORAL ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19/10/2007 so far as passed against appellant/original opponent no.4/ICICI Bank Ltd. in consumer complaint no.128/2006, Mr.S.S.Thakur v/s. GMAC Financial Services and others; by District Forum Thane.
There is delay of 1113 days in filing this appeal and, hence, separate delay condonation application bearing Misc. application no.MA/10/695 is filed. It is alleged by the applicant/appellant that they were quite unaware of the original proceeding of the consumer complaint and even copy of the order passed was not served upon them. They became aware of the order only when execution application u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed and notice of it was served upon them. Therefore, they immediately further took steps to file this appeal. We find that substantial question of law, about the forum erroneously passing the order against the applicant/appellant arises since, admittedly, there is no case of deficiency in service alleged and/or established against the applicant/appellant. Therefore, to do substantial justice we condone delay in filing the appeal.
Appeal is admitted and heard forthwith with consent of both the parties.
It is the case of respondent/complainant-Mr.S.S.Thakur (herein after referred as ‘complainant’) that he had purchased one Taxi-Indica Motor car through respondent –M/s.HAN Motors India Pvt. Ltd. To purchase the said vehicle, he had taken finance from respondent/opponent no.1-GMAC Financial Services. On 02/03/2006, at the instance of respondent/opponent no.1- GMAC Financial Services, two persons came and forcibly took possession of the vehicle i.e. taxi/Indica Motor car, supra, even though complainant promised to pay the defaulted installments and also offered his father as surety. The financial institution did not hand over the possession of the vehicle and, hence, the consumer complaint was filed. Except respondent/opponent no.3/Tata Motors manufacturer of the car, other respondents remained absent and proceeded ex-parte and it was a case of the manufacturer that they are unnecessarily made a party. Consumer complaint was dismissed against the manufacturer/opponent no.3 and it was partly allowed as against other opponents. It was directed to refund total consideration of the car viz.`3,44,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f.01/04/2006 and further compensation of `10,000/- and costs of `3000/- to be paid to the complainant. As earlier pointed out, original opponent no.4-M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd. has challenged the said order as affecting them.
Heard the parties present. Admittedly, vehicle i.e.taxi was purchased by the complainant after taking finance from respondent/ opponent no.1- M/s.GMAC Financial Services and said financial institution exercised their right to take possession of the vehicle on complainant committing default in repayment of loan. Therefore, certainly, appellant/ICICI Bank Ltd. had in fact no concern with the alleged deficiency in service in relation to taking back possession of the vehicle. Even though the matter is ex-parte, it was for the forum to examine the issue and further consider the evidence led. Per se, there is no case against the appellant/ opponent no.4/ICICI Bank Ltd. Under the circumstances, we find the order is erroneous as against the appellant bank. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Misc. application for condonation of delay is allowed.
Appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 19/10/2007 is quashed and set aside as against appellant/original opponent no.4/ICICI Bank Ltd.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 12th December, 2012.
