Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. Both these appeals are filed by the original complainants, feeling aggrieved by the two identical orders dated 08.12.2014, passed by District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in two consumer complaints bearing Nos.07/2013 & 08/2013, by which both the complaints have been dismissed.
2. The Forum below, while dismissing both the complaints, came to common conclusion that the documents filed on record in both the complaints show that the complainants / appellants had obtained additional loan on the same vehicle from the respondent / original opposite party and that the appellants / complainants have not paid the said loan and therefore the complainant is not entitled to relief as sought for in both the complaints. The Forum below also observed that the appellants / complainants failed to prove that their signatures were obtained on the blank forms. The Forum below concluded that the original opposite party / respondent herein is entitled to make recovery of the amount due from the original complainants / appellants and thus the opposite party / respondent has not rendered deficient service or has not adopted unfair trade practice. In the result of the said observations, the Forum below dismissed both the complaints.
3. We have heard Advocate Mr Sachin Jaiswal appearing for the respondent today. Advocate Mr J Vora who appeared for the complainants / appellants in both the appeal already filed “No Instruction Pursis” alongwith copy of the postal slip on 18.07.2018. According to the submission of Advocate Mr Vora as made on 18.07.2018, the appellants have not given him instruction to proceed with the appeals. Today none appeared for the appellant for making oral submission.
4. We have, therefore, considered the Written Notes of Arguments filed by Advocate Mr Vora in both the appeals, as oral submission of the appellants. We have also perused the record & proceedings of both the appeals.
5. The appellants in the Written Notes of Arguments mainly submitted that the appellants had individually applied for refinance of the vehicle in appeal No.A/15/49 and for tyre loan on the vehicle in appeal No.A/15/48 and that appellants signatures were obtained on the blank forms, which were misused by the respondent herein. Thus, according to the submission made in the said Written Notes of Arguments, the Forum below has not properly considered the material fact that respondent made wrongful and unjust demand as regards the refinance of the vehicle unilaterally on the basis of false documents. It is also submitted in appellants’ Written Notes of Arguments that the counsel for the respondent was appointed as a Member of the Consumer Forum and came to be posted at Chandrapur, where the said complaints were pending and that after hearing the parties, the Forum decided the complaints and rejected the same under the influence of the said Member, who was earlier counsel of the respondent. It is, therefore, requested by the appellant’s advocate that the impugned order may be set aside and both the complaints may be allowed.
6. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent Mr Sachin Jaiswal also filed Written Notes of Arguments and submitted that all the allegations made in the Written Notes of Arguments are totally false. He has drawn our attention to the document filed before the Forum below as filed in appeals to prove that the complainants / appellants had refinanced the vehicle in one of the complaints and they had obtained child loan in another complaint and the same were not repaid by them and therefore the Forum below has rightly held that the respondent herein is entitled to make recovery of the loan amount in accordance with the law from the original complainants / appellants. He, thus, supported the impugned order and submitted that both the complaints may be dismissed.
7. At the outset, we find that both the impugned orders are signed by Mr V C Premchandani as a President and Smt Kirti Gadgil (Vaidya) as a Member of District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur and third Member of the said Forum Smt Kalpana Jangde has not signed both impugned orders. Therefore, it cannot be said that Smt Kalpana Jangde was a party to the impugned orders. Moreover, the submission made on behalf of the appellants in Written Notes of Arguments that the impugned orders were passed under the pressure of Smt Kalpana Jangde is unfounded and baseless and thus cannot be accepted without any supportive evidence.
8. We also find that the Forum below has rightly held that the documents filed before the Forum below, proved that the appellant in complaint No.08/2013 (Appeal No.A/15/48) had obtained additional loans after initially taking finance of Rs.2.00 Lakhs of which details are given by respondent in reply to that complaint. Moreover, in another complaint bearing No. 07/2013 (Appeal No.A/15/49) the complainant / appellant had obtained second time loan of Rs.5.20 Lakhs by way of refinance of the same and Rs.7.40 Lakhs was to be repaid. The complainant / appellant had obtained tyre loan for Rs.22,000/-. The complainant / appellant had taken other loans. The details of those loans are given by respondent in reply filed to that complaint.
9. The complainants / appellants had come with a case that no such additional loans or finance were taken by them and false and fabricated documents were prepared about the same after obtaining their signatures on blank forms by the respondent. However, we find that there is no evidence to prove the same. Hence, the Forum has rightly disbelieved the said case of the appellants / original complainants.
10. Thus, we are of the considered view that the there is no merit in both the appeals and they deserve to be dismissed in as much as the Forum below has properly appreciated the evidence brought on record and came to the correct conclusion.
Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Both appeal Nos.A/15/48 & A/15/49 are here by dismissed.
ii. No order as to costs in these appeals.
iii. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
