KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 632/11

JUDGMENT DATED : 28.1.2012

PRESENT:

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR             :  MEMBER

Bajaj Finance Limited,

Old Mumbai- Pune Highway,

Akurdi, Pune.                                                      :  APPELLANT

(By Advs. Philip T. Varghese and others)

Vs

Subair R., S/o Khader Haji,

Thekkemoole House,

Muttathody P.O.,                                                 :  RESPONDENT

Chengala Kasargode 671 541.

(By Adv. C. Mohanan)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

          This appeal is filed by Bajaj Finance Limited, Old Mumbai- Pune Highway, Akurdi, Pune who is aggrieved by the order
dated: 7.4.2010 of CDRF, Kasargod in CC No. 264/2009. As per the order the opposite party who was exparte before the Forum below is fastened with the liability of payment of Rs.26,112/- with compensation of Rs.8,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- within 30days from the date of receipt of order failing which the opposite party is also under directions to pay interest @12% p.a for the amount of Rs.26,112/- from the date of complaint till payment.

2.      The case of the complainant was that he had availed a loan from the opposite party and after remitting a substantial amount he wanted to close the loan and when he approached for closing the loan, the opposite party demanded Rs.18,382/- more and that the original RC was not handed over to him for indemnifying the loss sustained to his vehicle in an accident. The complainant had also stated that the vehicle was repossessed on 21.10.09 without complying the legal formalities.

3.      It is stated by the Forum in the order that the opposite party remained absent inspite of receipt of notice issued through registered post and hence was set-exparte. The Forum below on the affidavit of the complainant and documents produced as Exts. A1 and A2, passed the impugned order.

4.      The counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the appellant had no office in the address shown in the complaint and the notices might have been received by some unauthorized person. It is also his case that the complainant had misrepresented before the Forum in the execution proceedings and warrant was sent to the present appellant and the appellant came to know about the proceedings only on intimation of the execution proceedings. It is argued by him that the complainant approached the Forum with unclean hands and the appellant must be given an opportunity to contest the matter in accordance with law before the Forum below.

          5.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant opposed the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. It is his very case that the opposite party has an office at Kannur and the Manager of the opposite party’s branch office at Kannur had accepted the notice. It is also submitted by him that one
Mr. Rajeev filed an affidavit stating to be the manager of M/s. Bajaj Limited at Kannur. He has also a case that the appellant has approached this commission only on intimation of the execution proceedings by the complainant and hence the appeal is to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

6.      On hearing both sides, and also on perusing the records produced from respective sides, it is found that the complainant has obtained a loan from the opposite party’s agent at Kasaragod. The appellant would argue that the appellant has neither a branch office at Kannur nor has an agent at Kasaragod. It is also found that the appellant has a strong case regarding the sanctioning of the loan, repayment etc. It is submitted that the case put forth by the complainant will not have any jurisdiction before the Forum. The learned counsel submitted that the complainant has not filed any police complaint or any other complaint against the repossession of the vehicle from the complainant.

7.      Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant it is felt that an opportunity is to be given to the appellant to implead himself before the Forum in the complaint and to contest the matter in accordance with law. All the same the complainant/respondent is also at liberty to adduce further evidence in the matter.

8.      In the result, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Forum below for fresh disposal after giving the appellant an opportunity to be impleaded in the complaint and the Forum is directed to give opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence also in support of their contentions.

The matter stands posted before the Forum on 29.2.2012.

The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR:  MEMBER

Da