State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sbi Cards &Services; Ltd. vs Gaurav Aggarwal on 25 July, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision :17.05.2016 Revision Petition No. 127/2016 (Arising out of the order dated 16.05.13 passed in Complaint Case No.256/10 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi.) In the matter of Sh. B N Namata S/o Late Sh. Madhu Sudan Namata R/o - C-51/Z-3, 2nd Floor Dilshad Garden Delhi-110095 Sh. Subrata Namata S/o Sh. B N Namata R/o - C-51/Z-3, 2nd Floor Dilshad Garden Delhi-110095 ......Petitioner Versus Dewant Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. B-6/7, DDA Community Centre Safdurjung Enclave Opp. Dear Park New Delhi-110095 AND Warden House, 2nd floor Sir P.M. Road, Fort Mumbai-400001 Mr. Harsh Arora Arora Properties (Dealer) 22-A, Pocket - A, Group-1, MIG Flats Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 Mr. Hari Mohan Sharma S/o Sh. V K Sharma C/o Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. C-31, 32 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 001 Sh. Shyam Mohan Sharma, Brother of Mr. hari Mohan Sharma, C/o Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. C-31, 32 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 001 ...Respondents CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President Aggrieved by the order dated 16.5.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Shikh Sarai (in short ' the Ld. District Forum) in CC No.256/10 whereby the application of petitioner/complainant for filing additional evidence has been dismissed, the present petition is filed.
A complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is filed by the petitioner herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that he had entered into an agreement for sale of flat number C-51/Z-3, Second floor, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95 in June, 2007 for a sum of Rs.41 lacs with respondent No. 3 & 4 through respondent No. 2. A loan of Rs.27,50,000/- was availed by the petitioner/complainant from respondent No.1. It is alleged that all the original documents relating to aforesaid property were deposited with respondent No.1 at the time of availing the loan. It is alleged that after taking the loan in June, 2007 from respondent No.1, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. offered to give loan to the petitioner/complainant at a less rate of interest as compared to the respondent No. 1. Therefore, petitioner/complainant requested the respondent No.1 to return the original documents of the property. It is alleged that some of the documents were returned. However, the documents mentioned in para 6 at Sl. No. 15 & 16 of complaint were not returned to him. The petitioner/complainant has filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents. The petitioner/complainant has made a prayer for recovering of foreclosure charges of sum of Rs.49,634/- which is alleged to have been illegally charged by respondent No.1 and also prayer has been made for compensation to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of damage, mental pain and agony.
The aforesaid complaint is being contested before the Ld. District Forum by the respondent No. 1 to 4/OP No. 1 to 4. The parties have also filed their evidence by way of affidavits. When the case was at the stage of final hearing, the petitioner/complainant had moved an application for leading additional evidence wherein it was alleged that by the loss of alleged property documents, the value of the property of the petitioner/complainant has been reduced as such permission was sought to file an affidavit of Sh. O.P. Bhatia, registered Chartered Engineer to prove the report about the value of the property. The petitioner/complainant had requested for filing his own additional affidavit to substantiate that the FIR No.495/09 dated 11.5.09, was false. It was alleged that respondents had colluded and lodged false report. It was alleged that First Information Report No.459/09 at PS Uttam Nagar was lodged by one Sh. Vinod about alleged loss of his driving license. It was alleged that the petitioner/complainant got the necessary details to substantiate the allegations only after filing his affidavit.
The aforesaid application was opposed by the respondents/OPs by filing separate replies contending that the prayer made in the application was an afterthought and the matter was at final hearing stage and the application was not maintainable.
After hearing the Counsel for the parties, Ld. District Forum dismissed the application for filing additional affidavit by holding that the petitioner/complainant had already been given sufficient opportunity to file rejoinder and evidence and the proposed additional evidence was with him at that stage also. There was no justification for taking the same at belated stage.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order present petition is filed.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant has contended that by the impugned order, valuable rights available to the petitioner/complainant under the Consumer Protection Act have been lost. It is contended a great prejudice shall be caused to him if additional affidavits by way of evidence are not taken on record whereas no prejudice shall be caused to respondent/complainant as they will get full chance to rebut the same.
It is contended that the affidavit of Sh. O.P. Bhatia is necessary as the same substantiates the case of petitioner/complainant about the allegation of decrease in the market value of the property due to alleged loss of property documents It is contended that the said evidence is necessary for determining the alleged quantum of loss. It is contended that the respondents lodged a false NCR No. 459/2009 dated 11.5.09 by forging the signature of the petitioner no. 1 to avoid their liability towards the missing original documents. It is alleged that plea in this regard is taken in paragraph 12 and 18 of the complaint. It is submitted by the petitioner/complainant that the original NCR No.459/2009 was registered on the complaint of one Sh. Vinod who reported the loss of his driving license. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner no. 1 has been manipulated and contents in respect of the loss of documents as alleged is the work of the respondent no.1. It is submitted that the copy of the said N C R was received by the petitioner no. 1 vide his R T I application dated 01/10/2012 and reply of CPIO dated 26.10.2012. No DD entry in the Roznamcha of PS Uttam Nagar has been foundlodged relating to NCR No. 459/2009. It is contended that aforesaid evidence is necessary for establishing the case of petitioner/complainant.
It is contended that the case is still not finally heard and a great prejudice shall be caused to the complainant if the additional evidence by way of affidavits as discussed above are not taken on record.
The only ground of opposition raised by the respondents/OPs before us is that the case is at final hearing and the Ld. District Forum has rightly not taken the additional affidavit on record.
The stand of the petitioner is that there is no delay. It is also contended that the information about lodging report under his alleged false signature has come to his knowledge only after filing his evidence. It is also contended that his earlier Counsel also did not advise him for leading additional evidence.
In the present case, petitioner/complainant has been able to show sufficient cause due to which he could not produce the aforesaid evidence earlier. The interest of justice requires that petitioner/complainant be allowed to file additional affidavits as are prayed by him to prove the report about alleged decrease in the value of the property and an additional affidavit of his own to substantiate about the allegation of false report to the police. Accordingly we accept the petition and set aside the impugned order.
The next date before the District Forum is stated to be 13.7.2016.
Parties shall appear before the Ld. District Forum on the aforesaid date. The Ld. District Forum shall take the aforesaid affidavits of petitioner/complainant on record as additional evidence. Respondents/OPs shall also be given an opportunity to rebut the aforesaid evidence, in case the same is requested by them.
The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum - VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi for information.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member ak