First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.408 of 2011
Date of institution : 04.03.2011
Date of decision : 16.07.2015
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., SCO No.6, Chotti Baradari, Near Bank Square, The Mall, Patiala, Punjab (earlier address SCO No.134, 1st Floor, The Mall, Patiala) represented through Sh. Anurag Sharma, Assistant Manager (Legal). …….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Surjit Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh resident of Village Jamitgarh, Tehsil & District Fategarh Sahib, Punjab. …..…Respondent/ Complainant
First Appeal against order dated 04.01.2011 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fategarh Sahib.
Quorum:-
Mr. J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. H. S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant/complainant : Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate
For the respondent/OP : Sh. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate
MR. H. S. GURAM, MEMBER:-
ORDER
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (the Opposite Party in the complaint) against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order of District Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum Fategarh Sahib, (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) dated 04.01.2011passed in C.C. No.290 dated 04.11.2010, vide which, the complaint filed by the complainant was accepted and the OP was directed to handover five blank cheques, taken as security drawn on Punjab National Bank to the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges and also to supply the photocopy of the loan agreement file to the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got financed quails vehicle bearing Registration No. PB-08-PH-9947 from opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,93,175/- against the sanctioned amount of Rs.2 Lacs and thereby was required to pay the amount through installments of Rs.5,825/- each. It was averred in the complaint that he was regularly depositing the installments of the loan with the OPs and the vehicle was used for earning his livelihood by the complainant. It was further submitted that he had deposited Rs.2,34,000/- with the OPs and OPs had not provided him the documents and also the statement of account. In the absence of any statement of his loan account, he was unable to find as to what was the balance due from him to be paid to OPs. At the time of release of the loan obtained by him from the OP, he gave five signed blank cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank to the OPs as security. It was further submitted by complainant that whenever he approached the OPs to provide him the account statement, they refused to provide the same. It was further alleged in the complaint that though he was paying his installments regularly, the OPs had illegally and forcibly snatched his vehicle from him and charged from a sum of Rs.11,125/- from the complainant, as repossession charges, interest and parking charges unauthorizedly. However, he had got released his vehicle from the OPs by paying the above charges. It was further submitted by him that OP was adopted unfair trade practice and threatened him to pay back the amount despite the fact that he had, already deposited the amount of Rs.2,34,000/- with them. On failure to get any relief from the OPs for providing him the loan statement regarding his outstanding balance, he was forced to approach the District Consumer Forum and filed his complaint against the OPs. He prayed for issuance of directions to OPs, to get the balance amount deposited after adjusting the amount already deposited by him. The complainant prayed for Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
3. Notice was sent to the OP of the complaint on 08.11.2010 for 26.11.2010. On 26.11.2010, nobody appeared on behalf of the OP, and the matter was posted for 13.12.2010 for awaiting the report of the registered letters sent in regard to notice to the OP. The case was taken up on 14.12.2010 and the OP was proceeded against ex-parte in the District Forum.
4. The complainant tendered in exparte evidence Registration Certificate of the vehicle Ex.C-1; amount of Rs.1,93,175/- released in favour of the complainant by the OP on 30.07.2007 Ex.C-2. The amount of installments paid by the complainant to OP to the tune of Rs.2,34,000/-, vide Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-36 and closed the exparte evidence. On conclusion of exparte evidence and arguments, the District Forum Fategarh Sahib, accepted the complaint of the complainant exparte. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the OP now appellant has brought this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and also examined the record of the case. The counsel for the appellant argued that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to it by the District Forum and the appellant remained deprived of their right to contest the case. It was further contended that the District Forum did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the present complaint as well.
6. The counsel of the respondent in this appeal argued that the complaint filed by him in the District Forum Fategarh Sahib, was duly instituted in proper Forum. The contentions raised by the counsel of the appellant is not correct, as the part of action had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of District Fategarh Sahib as such the complaint was maintainable before the District Forum Fategarh Sahib.
7. We have perused the Zimmi order of the District Forum dated 08.11.2010 whereby notice was issued to OP for 26.11.2010.. As per the rules enacted under the Consumer Protection Act, the notice to the OP was required to be given for clear of 30 days period. It is evident from the Zimmini order that on 26.11.2010, none appeared for the OP and the District Forum adjourned the case to 13.12.2010 for awaiting report. The District Forum had wrongly postponed the date to 13.12.2010 for awaiting the report instead of issuing fresh notice to OP. We find from the record of District Forum that notice was issued to OP, vide No. 967 dated 12.11.2010. From 12.11.2010, clear 30 days period had not expired on 26.11.2010. The District Forum set the OP exparte on 13.12.2010 on the basis of notice issued for 26.11.2010. The District Forum should have issued fresh notice to OP when clear 30 days period was not provided to OP from the date of issuance of notice on 12.11.2010. We are of the view that the District Forum should have given another clear 30 days notice to the OP so as to enable it to appear before it The District Forum erred on 26.11.2010 by passing the order to await the A.D. for 13.12.2010. District Forum was required to issue a fresh notice on 26.11.2010 to the OP giving them not less than 30 days period from the date of issuance of notice. Consequently, the order of the District Forum is unsustainable and erroneous.
8. The appeal of the appellant is accepted and order of the District Forum 04.1.2011 is set aside and the case is remained to the District Forum for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to lead evidence to the parties. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the concerned District Forum on 27.08.2015. Record of the District Forum be returned forthwith.
9. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.2,500/- at the time of filing the appeal before this Commission The Registry is hereby directed to remit the amount of Rs.2,500/- along with interest, if any accrued thereon, to the appellant/OP by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 08.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J.S. Klar)
Presiding Judicial Member
(H.S. Guram)
Member
July 16, 2015
RK 2
