| Final Order / Judgement | Dated: 07.10.2024 O R D E R BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER: - This is an appeal filed by complainant in CC/99/2014 on the file of DCDRF, Bagalkot, aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2016. (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Forum)
- The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.
- Now the point that arise for consideration of the Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 08.01.2016 passed in CC/99/2014 by DCDRF, Bagalkot, does call for an interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo? - Learned counsel for appellant/complainant submits that District Forum failed to appreciate contents of complaint along with other materials placed on record, while passing the impugned order. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents/Ops would submit that the District Forum has rightly held, the complainant is not a Consumer within the definition of Sec.2(1)(d) of CPA, 1986 and to find support placed decision of the KSCDRC in A/3360/2011 in the case between G.J.Rangaswamy and others v. Corporation Bank and others wherein held in para-05 –
“It is a well settled law that, if a borrower fails to repay the installments regularly, the financier is entitled to seize the vehicle without service of prior notice. …………. In view of the said law as held by the Hon’ble National Commission followed by this Commission that prior notice need not be issued to seize the vehicle if there is any default in payment of the loan amount.So District Forum has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in para-15, but the law has been changed to that effect.We are bound by the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble National Commission.” - Let us examine the contents of complaint, wherein in para-02 complainant has stated that he is an agriculturist and had purchased Volvo excavator and Mr.Sanjeevappa S/o Kanakappa Harijan R/o Halkavatgai Taluk,Lingasur District, Raichur as a business partner and both partners decided that purchasing the Volvo EC 210B Excavator from Wilworth Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. The relief sought in this complaint could be found in para-16, wherein has sought for direction against OPs to verify the loan interest according to the loan agreement and the period of the loan is 581 days only. But the OPs have calculated total terms loan agreement and they have collected hidden charges and to that effect has sought directions against OPs to refund remaining balance of Rs.3,42,821/- with interest according to the calculation memo and sought to furnish the loan clearance certificate as fully satisfied to the complainant. In our view, when such relief was sought by complainant, the District Forum could have examined the case on merits instead to dismiss the complaint on the ground that he is not a Consumer within the definition of Sec.2(1)(d) of CPA, 1986. In this regard Learned counsel for complainant rightly submits that District Forum in para-06 has recorded that complainant in his complaint has not stated that the vehicle purchased by him was not for the purpose of commercial purpose which in our view is not necessary, when he has stated in his complaint that it was purchased for agricultural purpose and he is an agriculturist, suffice to fulfill the condition precedent to attract the definition of Sec.2(1)(d) of CPA, 1986. We are also of the opinion that for the complaint raised alleging OP rendering deficiency of service in the matter of loan availed in relation to charging of interest the District Forum is not expected to drive parties to approach Civil Court to get redress their grievance. In such conclusion, we proceed to allow the complaint. Consequently, set aside the order dated 08.01.2016 passed in CC/99/2014 on the file of DCDRF, Bagalkot and directed DCDRC, Bagalkot to re-admit the complaint and decide the case on merits affording opportunity to both parties as early as possible keeping in mind the object of CPA, 1986 or 2019 as the case may be.
- Remit back the LCR to the District Commission and send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.
Lady Member Judicial Member *GGH* | |
