Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has purchased a Tata Sumo vehicle from OP No.1 bearing Registration No.OR-05-AN-8373. Complainant alleged inter alia that he paid Rs.2,14,367/- towards down payment to purchase such vehicle and OP No.1 has given loan amount of Rs.4,98,000/- after due execution of agreement with the complainant. As per the agreement, the complainant was to pay Rs.14,720/- as monthly instalment for 48 months to OP No.2. It is alleged further that after purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle was found defective and the matter was reported to OP No.1 for removal of defects. When the complainant approached OP No.1 for repairing, it advised the complainant to produce the vehicle at Maa Sameswari Automobile Centre, Sambalpur. Complainant approached the said Service Centre but it refused and asked for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- for repairing. Complainant returned but in the meantime, OP No.2 took possession of the vehicle from the complainant forcibly. Complainant approached OP No. 2 for handing over the vehicle but it was futile one. So the complaint was filed.
4. Per contra, OP No.1 filed written version separately denying the facts and law and also by stating that the complaint is not maintainable. At the same time, OP No.1 admitted towards purchase of the vehicle from him by denying its liabilities. According to him, the vehicle was not defective one and the allegations are false one.
5. OP Nos. 2 and 3 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant was not paying the instalments regularly for which they have seized the vehicle. Therefore, there was no any deficiency of service on their part.
6. After hearing both parties, learned District Forum have passed the following impugned order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
Taking into consideration into case of the complainant and documents filed by him so also the submission made by the OPs, we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the OP No.2 to return back his vehicle with free from defect and after handing over the vehicle the complainant shall make regular payment after 2 months and in the alternative they will not claim any loan amount from the complainant rather pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only to the complainant within two months from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the OPs for realization of awarded amount. The case against OP No.1 and OP No.3 dismissed without cost.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper because they are financer but not the repairer of the vehicle. According to him, the impugned order has been passed against them directing OP Nos. 2 and 3 to return the vehicle free from defect and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-. He submitted that in the complaint petition it is prayed to direct OP No.1 to return the vehicle without any defect. But order has been passed directing the financer – appellants to return the vehicle without any defect. It is submitted by appellant that since the appellants are the financer, they have no role to repair the vehicle and as such the impugned order is illegal and improper. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. It is for the complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP Nos. 2 and 3.
10. Complaint is very clear to show that the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant being financed by OP Nos. 2 and 3. It is not in dispute that the vehicle has been repossessed by OP Nos. 2 and 3 due to default in payment of the EMIs. The prayer portion in the complaint is as follows:-
“xxx xxx xxx
Hence, it s prayed tht the Hon’ble court be pleased to pass an order by directing the OP No.1 to deliver a New vehicle in exchange of the defective vehicle Regd. No.OR-05-AN-8373 or to make arrangement for repairing the said vehicle at their own cost or any appropriate order the Hon’ble court deemed fit and further the complainant claims Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs only) towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.”
11. In the above prayer, there is no any relief claimed against OP Nos. 2 and 3. It appears from the complaint that repairing of the vehicle should be done by OP No.1 who has directed complainant to take vehicle to Maa Sameswari Automobile Centre, Sambalpur who is not a party to the case for repair. Complainant alleged that the said Auto Mobile Centre demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for repairing to which he refused but at the same time, the vehicle has been allegedly seized by OP Nos. 2 and 3. In such circumstances, the question of return of new vehicle or defect free vehicle by the financer – OP Nos. 2 and 3 is out of question. On the other hand, relief is only claimed against OP No.1 although impugned order directs OP No.2 – financer to return the defect free vehicle or new vehicle without any iota of evidence of agreement of OP Nos. 2 and 3 with complainant to repair the vehicle or return defect free vehicle.When there is no relief claimed against the appellant and no issue against OP Nos. 2 and 3 is framed, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. On further perusal of the impugned order, it appears that no discussion has been made about any liability on OP No. 2 when OP No.1 failed or refused to repair the vehicle in question. It is settled in law that no judicial or quasi judicial order can be passed without any statement of reason recorded to support the conclusion arrived by the court.
12. In view of above discussion, this Commission do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum and as such said impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.
13. In the result, appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.
The copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.