Dtd.06.06.2024                                            A/1703/2014

O R D E R

          BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP.3/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.17.10.2014 passed in CC/27/2013 on the file of Chikmagaluru District Forum. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, and appeal papers. Now the question that arise for this Commission would be whether the impugned order dtd.17.10.2014 passed in CC/27/2013 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo ?

3. One Smt.Nagarathna Bai raised consumer complaint against OPs.1 to 3 with a prayer to hold them to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.73,440/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from 2004and to return the original title deeds. OPs.1 & 2 are placed exparte, while OP.3 is represented by learned counsel denied the relationship of service provider and consumer between Complainant and OP.3 and requested to dismiss the complaint against OP.3.

4. In view of the rival contentions of the parties to the complaint. The District Forum held an enquiry, proceed to allow the complaint in part and dismissed the complaint against OPs.1 & 2 and directed OP.3 to return original title deeds and to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for deficiency in service along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- within one month, failing which, to pay interest at 9% p.a from such date till realisation. It is this order is assailed in this appeal by OP.3 contending the District Forum has failed to appreciate the materials in right perception. The District Forum has erred in directing the Appellant to return all the original title deeds without ascertaining whether the loan is cleared by OPs.1 & 2. The impugned order is contrary to the facts and law is liable to be set aside.

5. The contentions of the Appellant would be as there is no relationship of service provider and consumer between OP.3 and Complainant, yet the DG has entertained the complaint against him. In our view such contentions  could not be acceptable, admittedly the Complainant had obtained  loan of Rs.93,000/-from OPs.1 & 2 and they and   OP 3 have relationship which could be said they are together one and the same and could be said service provider. Further to be noted herein  Complainant has not availed loan from OP.3 but facts remain found from enquiry, OPs.1 & 2 have availed loan amount from OP.3 and have released the amount of Rs.93,000/- to the Complainant, suffice to hold that there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the Complainant and OPs.1 to 3. In such view of the matter in  our view dismissal of complaint   against OPs.1 & 2 and holding OP.3 alone liable to return all original title deeds and to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-, which has to be held grave error committed by the District Forum. Since Ops 1 and 2 have to get back the loan documents from Appellant/OP.3 and they and they alone have to return the deposited documents subject to discharge of the loan by Complainant/loanee. In such conclusion   exonerating OP NOs.1 and 2 and directing OP no.3 alone to return documents  could not be implemented for simple reason, as the OP nos.1 and 2 have to show that the amount received by complainant was credited to the account of OP no.3 and this crux of dispute was not at all examined by the DF.

6.  In the above such view, it would be just and proper to remand back the matter to the District Commission to reconsider the case afresh affording opportunity to both parties to ascertain whether OPs.1 & 2 have discharged the loan availed from OP.3 which was advanced to complainant and to ascertain who are all liable to pay compensation and to return original documents in favour of the loanee/Complainant/member as the case may be. Hence, proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently, set aside the order dtd.17.10.2014 passed in CC/27/2013 on the file of Chikmagaluru District Commission with a direction to readmit the complaint and decide the case afresh as observed in this order. The DCDRC is directed to decide the complaint as early as possible keeping in mind the object of the CPA.

7. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful. 

8. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

   Lady Member                               Judicial Member 

*NS*