ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 28 OF 2011
Ashank Shukla
S/o Sri Amresh Dutt Shukla
R/o Village Chhedi Purva
Post Janki Nagar, District Gonda
...Complainant
Vs.
- Tata Motors Finance Limited
Through its Authorized Officer
Having registered office at Nanavati-
Mahalaya 3rd Floor 18 Homi Mody Street
Mumbai-400001
- Branch Manager
Tata Motors Finance Limited
Branch Faizabad
...Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT.
For the Complainant : None appeared
For the Opposite Party : Sri Rajesh Chadha, Advocate.
Dated : 03-08-2021
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
No one is present on behalf of the complainant.
Heard Sri Rajesh Chadha, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant, being an unemployed person, had purchased a truck for his livelihood. He got the truck financed through the opposite parties. A hire purchase agreement was entered into between the parties on 18-12-2009 and the opposite parties agreed to pay loan of Rs.9,05,000/-. The said amount was to be repaid by the complainant to the opposite party in three years i.e. an instalment of Rs.35,550/- per month. The delivery of the vehicle was given to the complainant on 28-12-2009 on the down payment of Rs.3,90,682/-. The cost of the chassis was Rs.12,95,000/-. It is alleged in the complaint that due to heart attack of his grandmother the complainant could not pay the monthly instalments regularly. It is further alleged in the
:2:
Complaint that the opposite parties forcibly took away the vehicle from the possession of the complainant on 28-01-2011 alongwith the goods loaded in the truck.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant Ashank Shukla before this Commission in March, 2011 by which the complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
- That the opposite parties may be directed to release the vehicle of the complainant.
- That the opposite parties may be directed to compensation from the loss of the use of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.10,00,000.00
- That the opposite parties be directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000.00
- That the cost of this complaint be awarded to the complainant against the opposite parties.
- That the opposite parties be restrained from transferring, selling, disposing, etc. the vehicle in question in any manner what so ever during the pendency of instant complaint.
- That any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of complainant and against the opposite parties.
While entertaining the aforesaid complaint the following order has been passed by this Commission on 30-03-2011.
“Heard learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record including opposite parties’ written notice dated 31-01-2011wherein it was admitted to them that they had taken possession of truck as a sum of Rs.2,14,062/- was outstanding against the complainant. The last instalment, as is evident, from the statement of accounts was paid in Dec. 2010.
Subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite parties within fifteen days with further condition of monthly instalment being deposited in time from April, 2011 onwards, the truck shall be released. The opposite parties shall under no circumstances sell the truck as about 80%
of the loan taken by the complainant has been repaid.
The complaint is admitted for hearing.
:3:
Opposite parties may file their written statement within two months.
Replication if any may be filed within a fortnight.
List on 18-07-2011 for orders/hearing.”
After the aforesaid order the complaint was listed on different dates. An order has been passed on 21-09-2012 which reads as follows:-
“सूची की पुनरावृत्ति हो चुकी है। आयोग की वेबसाइट पर वाद सूची अपलोड होने एवं उसके इण्टरनेट पर प्रदर्शित होने तथा पर्याप्त सूचना के उपरान्त भी आज सुनवाई के समय परिवादी की ओर से कोई भी उपस्थित नहीं है। विपक्षी की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री राजेश चड्ढा उपस्थित।
अत: उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट होता है कि इस परिवाद की कार्यवाही में परिवादी को कोई रूचि नहीं है। तदनुसार परिवादी की अनुपस्थिति के कारण यह परिवाद पैरवी के अभाव में निरस्त किया जाता है।“
It appears that the appeal has been preferred by the complainant before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which has been registered as First Appeal No. 352 of 2013 in which the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has passed an order dated 13-08-2013 which reads as follows:-
“State Commission dismissed the complaint in default of appearance. Limited notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law.
Mr. T. V. George, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
Limited notice issued to the respondents is made absolute. Impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law.
Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the
:4:
State Commission on 24-09-2013.”
While disposing of the first appeal the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has directed the parties to appear before this Commission on the date fixed i.e. on 24-09-2013. On 24-09-2013 on behalf of the complainant another Counsel put in appearance and filed his vakalatnama, namely Sri Lakshya Deep Srivastava, therefore, this Commission has directed for oral argument while fixing the date as 01-11-2013. The case was adjourned on 01-11-2013. Thereafter again on 03-03-2014 the adjournment was sought by the newly engaged Counsel of the complainant Sri Lakshya Deep Srivastava and again on 19-05-2014 another Counsel appeared on behalf of the complainant Sri Adeel Ahmad who sought an adjournment. Again on 06-08-2014, 01-10-2014, 03-03-2015, 24-07-2015, 09-10-2015 the case was adjourned and the date has been fixed as 03-11-2015 on which date on account of the reason that the reply is not filed by the opposite parties the case was adjourned for 10-12-2015. Again the date was fixed for 26-02-2016 on which date the following order has been passed.
“आज यह पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुई। परिवादी की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री लक्ष्यदीप श्रीवास्तव तथा विपक्षी की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री राजेश चड्ढा उपस्थित हैं। अधिवक्ता विपक्षी द्वारा परिवाद की पोषणीयता के सन्दर्भ में प्रारम्भिक आपत्ति दाखिल की गयी। अधिवक्ता परिवादी द्वारा हमारा ध्यान इस तथ्य की ओर आकृष्ट किया गया है कि इस परिवाद में विपक्षी को प्रतिवाद पत्र प्रस्तुत करने हेतु दिनांक ३०-०३-२०११ को आयोग द्वारा आदेशित किया गया था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक प्रतिवाद पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है। प्रतिवाद पत्र प्रस्तुत करने हेतु प्रतिवादी का समय समाप्त हो चुका है। अत: यह प्रारम्भिक आपत्ति स्वीकार न की जाय। अधिवक्ता परिवादी के इस कथन में बल है कि प्रतिवाद पत्र प्रस्तुत करने का अधिकतम समय समाप्त हो चुका है और इस समयावधि के अन्दर प्रतिवादी ने अपना प्रतिवाद पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है। अत: प्रतिवाद पत्र न स्वीकार किए जाने का औचित्य अवश्य प्रतीत होता है।
:5:
किन्तु, जहॉं तक प्रतिवादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत की जा रही प्रारम्भिक आपत्ति में प्रतिवादी द्वारा यह अभिलिखित किया गया है कि परिवादी उपभोक्ता नहीं है तथा इस परिवाद की सुनवाई का आर्थिक क्षेत्राधिकार इस आयोग को प्राप्त नहीं है। ये विधिक बिन्दु हैं, जिन पर इस स्तर पर विचार किया जाना न्यायोचित होगा। अधिवक्ता परिवादी, प्रतिवादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत की गयी प्रारम्भिक आपत्तियों पर अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत करने हेतु समय चाहते हैं। अत: इस प्रारम्भिक आपत्ति के निस्तारण हेतु परिवाद दिनांक १९-०४-२०१६ को सूचीबद्ध हो। परिवादी यदि चाहे तो नियत तिथि तक अपना उत्तर दाखिल कर सकता है।“
Again on 20-04-2016, 05-05-2016, 24-08-2016 and 03-10-2016 the case was adjourned on account of non appearance of the Counsel for the complainant. On 09-11-2016 on behalf of complainant the original Counsel who has filed the complaint namely Sri Praveen Kumar Tripathi appeared and prayed for time for preparation of the case. Thereafter again on 19-12-2016 the case was adjourned. On 02-03-2017 on account of non appearance of the Counsel for the complainant the case was adjourned. Again on 16-05-2017, 04-09-2017 and 01-12-2017 the case was adjourned on account of non appearance of the Counsel for the complainant. Again on 07-02-2018, 19-04-2018, 31-08-2018 the case was adjourned and on 28-02-2019 the case was adjourned on the request of the Counsel for the complainant and again on 14-05-2019 the case was adjourned on the request of the Counsel for the complainant. Thereafter on 19-12-2019 on account of newly engaged Counsel, on behalf of complainant namely Sri Alok Tripathi the case was adjourned. Thereafter due to Covid-19 pandemic the case was adjourned though it was listed at least for six times. On 09-07-2021 this Commission has considered the previous orders of the order sheet and passed an order in presence of the learned Counsel for the respective parties and last opportunity was allowed to the learned Counsel for the parties when the following detailed order has been passed on 20-07-2021.
“दिनांक 09.07.2021 को प्रस्तुत परिवाद में इस आयोग द्वारा पिछले
:6:
आदेशों के परिशीलनोपरान्त निम्न आदेश पारित किया गया:-
''प्रस्तुत परिवाद विगत 10 वर्ष से इस आयोग के सम्मुख लम्बित है। इस आयोग द्वारा पारित निर्णय दिनांक 21.09.2012 के विरूद्ध परिवादी द्वारा प्रथम अपील संख्या-352/2013 माननीय राष्ट्रीय आयोग के सम्मुख प्रस्तुत की गयी, जिस पर माननीय राष्ट्रीय आयोग द्वारा दिनांक 13.08.2013 को इस आयोग के आदेश को अपास्त करते हुए इस आयोग को परिवाद को निर्णीत करने हेतु दिनांक 24.09.2013 की तिथि नियत की।
पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध प्रपत्रों के परिशीलन से यह अवगत होता है कि अनेकों बार उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्ताओं द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रतिप्रेषित वाद को स्थगित कराने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किये गये, जिस कारण प्रस्तुत परिवाद प्रतिप्रेषण आदेश के उपरान्त लगभग 08 वर्ष से इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख लम्बित है। उभय पक्ष के अधिवक्ता द्व्य श्री आलोक त्रिपाठी एवं श्री राजेश चड्ढा उपस्थित हैं। उभय पक्ष के अधिवक्ता द्व्य की सहमति से प्रस्तुत परिवाद को दिनांक 20.07.2021 को अन्तिम सुनवाई हेतु प्रथम वाद के रूप में सूचीबद्ध किया जावे। यदि किसी भी पक्ष के अधिवक्ता अनुपस्थित रहेंगे उस दशा में गुणदोष के आधार पर अगली तिथि पर प्रस्तुत परिवाद अन्तिम रूप से निर्णीत किया जायेगा।''
उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्तागण से यह अपेक्षा की गयी थी कि वे आज इस परिवाद में अन्तिम रूप से बहस करेंगे और निर्णय करने में सहायता प्रदान करेंगे, परन्तु दुर्भाग्य का विषय है कि परिवादी के नवीन नियुक्त अधिवक्ता श्री आलोक त्रिपाठी को परिवाद से सम्बन्धित अनेकों विषयों पर किसी प्रकार का कोई तथ्य न तो परिवादी द्वारा न ही पूर्व नियुक्त अधिवक्ता द्वारा प्रदान किया गया। अतएव परिवादी के नव नियुक्त अधिवक्ता से यह अपेक्षा है कि वे अगली तिथि पर इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख इस परिवाद से सम्बन्धित विवरण पत्रिका (डेट एण्ड इवेन्ट चार्ट) प्रस्तुत करेंगे।
विपक्षी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री राजेश चड्ढा द्वारा भी विवरण चार्ट प्रस्तुत करने हेतु 01 सप्ताह का समय प्रदान किये जाने की प्रार्थना की।
:7:
प्रार्थना स्वीकृत है।
प्रस्तुत वाद को पुन: दिनांक 03.08.2021 को अन्तिम सुनवाई हेतु प्रथम वाद के रूप में सूचीबद्ध किया जावे।“
Today the case has been taken up. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties Sri Rajesh Chadha has appeared and submitted brief synopsis on behalf of the opposite parties. No one is present on behalf of the complainant. Seeing the attitude of the complainant and his Counsels this Commission has no option but to consider the submission of learned Counsel representing the opposite parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materials available on record I am of the opinion that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) which is fixed against the complainant as the complainant/his Counsels deliberately wasted the prestigious time of this Commission at least on three dozen dates. Not only this, the frequent change of Counsel that too without the consent of the previous Counsel is not permissible under the law and it is noticed by this Court particularly in this Institution/State Commission that the Counsels are changed by the respective parties in between the proceedings without taking the consent/no objection endorsement of the previous Counsel or the Commission which is necessary. Without consent of the Commission and the previous Counsel no new Counsel can appear on behalf of the parties, but this practice is going on in this Commission/Court since last many years, therefore, in one of the case being Appeal No.427 of 2020 a detailed order has been passed directing the registry not to accept vakalatnama of new Counsel without the NOC by the previous Counsel.
From the perusal of the documents and the contents of the complaint the complainant has submitted that the vehicle in question was taken away into the possession of the opposite parties while it was carrying the goods worth amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- which was supposed to be delivered at Bareilly. It is further mentioned in the complaint that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was also snatched away by the opposite parties from the possession of the driver of the vehicle and that
:8:
the loaded goods even are not delivered to the complainant. It is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant was desirous of paying the amount and resume the E.M.I. schedule, therefore, had approached the opposite parties for submission but the opposite parties either on one pretext or the another kept the matter pending, therefore, causes great mental distress and agony to the complainant. Lastly it is submitted that the opposite parties in dispossessing the complainant from the possession of the vehicle clearly establishes that their act was illegal and against the established principle of law.
In the memo of complaint the valuation of the case is assessed at Rs.35,00,000/-.
On behalf the opposite parties a preliminary objection has been filed about the maintainability of the complaint case. The relevant extract of the preliminary objections about the maintainability of the case reads as follows:-
“01. That complainant has filed the false and frivolous case seeking interalia relief of compensation of alleged financial loss of income for alleged non use of the vehicle costing around Rs. Twelve lakhs odd and also sought other reliefs of alleged compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
02.That instant case has been filed claiming compensation of Rs. Twenty lakhs without any basis is hypothetical has been claimed and just to skip the jurisdiction of District Forum and thus had filed the alleged case with exaggerated and inflated claim before the Hon’ble State Commission which thus is not cognizable and maintainable is liable to be rejected at the outright in limine without even entering into merits of the case. There is no justification in seeking claim of compensation of rupees twenty lakhs in respect of vehicle and thus alleged case has been filed just to bye pass the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
03.That even further the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question for commercial use admittedly, hence is not a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and as such the alleged case is not maintainable before the Hon’ble State Commission
-
is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
04. That aforesaid objections touches the root of the matter and in view of the same alleged case is not maintainable within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission and same is liable to be rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as well being non cognizable under the provisions of the said act and as such the aid Objections to be considered first before Hon’ble Commission enters into the merits of the case and in the meantime answering opposite parties reserve their right to reply on merits, if required, in the circumstances of the matter.”
Reply has been filed by the complainant to the preliminary objections and it is submitted that the preliminary objections raised by the opposite parties are misconceived, misleading and wrong. According to the complainant, the total cost of the truck which has been repossessed by the opposite parties reads as follows:-
- Ex-Showroom Price - 12,95,000
- RTO and Insurance - 1,29,500
- Body Making - 2,50,000
Total Amount 16,84,500
Apart from the aforesaid amount the complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of loss of income and Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and has also prayed for awarding litigation cost of the complaint and, therefore, the total value of the complaint has been assessed to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-
Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the value of the complaint was below of the valuation as prescribed under the law. Submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties is that the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant frivolously and in fact the complainant is not a consumer under the Act because admittedly the vehicle in question has been purchased for large scale commercial use for transport business for earning profit and not for livelihood.
In support of his claim the Counsel for the opposite parties has also relied upon the judgment reference of which has been given in its
:10:
additional objections.
I have gone through the contents of the complaint, the preliminary objections, the additional objections, reply to the preliminary objections and order sheet of the present complaint case. From the perusal of the order sheet, the reference of which has been given by me in this judgment/order clearly indicates that the complainant is not interested to finalize the instant complaint case which is pending since last more than ten years, therefore, without going into the merits of the case this complaint is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the complainant which this Court directs the District Magistrate, Gonds to realize the same from complainant Ashank Shukla, S/o Sri Amresh Dutt Shukla, R/o Village Chhedi Purva, Post Janki Nagar, District Gonda. The said cost be deposited with the Registrar of the State Commission within a period of three months from today. The Registrar of the State Commission is directed to communicate this order to the District Magistrate, Gonda for compliance and submitting his report within three months.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
