Delhi

StateCommission

A/530/2015

KAKA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 02.04.2019

Date of Decision : 09.04.2019

First Appeal No.530/2015

In the matter of:

 

            Kaka Singh,

            Son of late Shri S. Kapoor Singh,

            R/o. A-791, Prem Nagar,

            Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj,

            New Delhi.                                                                                         ………Appellant

                  

 

Versus

 

 

Muthoot Finance Ltd.,

Having their office at

Premises Bearing No.2/7,

First Floor,

Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi.….Respondent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Being aggrieved by order dated 17.08.15 passed by District Forum Central in CC No.232/14 dismissing the complaint, the present appeal has been preferred. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to complaint were that complainant had taken a loan of Rs.27,000/- from OP. On 16.09.13 he visited the office of OP and paid Rs.10,500/-, cashier Shri Ajish  claimed that complainant had paid only Rs.5,000/- only and not Rs.10,500/-. The police was called but nothing materialised.
2. District Forum found that question whether complainant tendered Rs.10,500/- or Rs.5,000/- only had to be determined after evidence and lengthy cross examination of witnesses. So the matter could not be adjudicated in summary procedure under Consumer Protection Act.
3. Delay in filing appeal was condoned vide order dated 31.08.16. In reply filed in the present appeal, respondent came forward  with the plea that appellant handed over  four currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each and two currency notes of Rs.500/- each which comes out to Rs.5,000/-. The CCTV showed handing over of six notes by the appellant to cashier. That could not make out the amount to Rs.10,500/-.
4. During arguments the counsel for respondent rightly submitted that in the year 2013 the currency note of Rs.2,000/- was not in circulation. The  highest currency note was of denomination of Rs.1,000/-. Thus  six notes could not make Rs.10,500/-.
5. The appellant insisted that cashier should not have left counter and gone inside without counting the notes and without telling him that the amount was Rs.5,000/- only and not only Rs.10,500/-.
6. Without going into the controversy on merit I feel myself in agreement  with the District Forum that the question involved in the case requires cross examination of witnesses. For that the proper remedy lies in civil court.
7. However I feel that the District Forum should have returned the complaint for being filed in Civil Court  instead of dismissing the same. The reason being that there was no adjudication on merits. Tag of dismissal would have barred remedy of civil suit also. So I modify the order of District Forum to the effect that complaint would be returned to the appellant who will be at liberty to file a suit in Civil Court, after excluding the period spent in present proceedings as per Section 14 Limitation Act and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engg Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 SCC (3) 583.
8. The appeal is disposed of  in  above terms.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
10. One copy of the order sent to District Forum for information.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)