National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sh. D. Vilas Rao, Dy. Manager (Legal) , ... vs Shri Amit Kumar Sharma on 7 January, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2386 OF 2008 (From the order dated 20.03.2008 in First Appeal No. 87/2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) Sh. D. Vilas Rao Deputy Manager (Legal) Authorized Representative of Sundram Finance Ltd. 607-608, 6th Floor, Ashok Estate No. 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110 001 Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP) Versus Shri Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. M.P. Sharma, R/o 68-69, Baba Colony, Burari, New Delhi Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh , Asstt. Mgr. (Legal) For the Respondent : Mr. B.K. Srivastava, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 7th January, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.03.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 87 of 2008 Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar Sharma by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent entered into loan agreement for purchasing a new Tata Indica Car with OP/petitioner for loan amount of Rs.2,90,000/-, which was to be paid in 47 monthly instalments of Rs.7,854/-. Complainant deposited 47 post-dated cheques of Rs.7,854/- each against the instalments. Cheques were cleared till 11.9.2003. Due to financial constraints, complainant could not pay instalment of October, 2003 and he intimated to Shri Shyam Sunder on 8.11.2003 on telephone that instalments of October and November will be deposited in November, 2003, but on 13.11.2003 some unknown persons revealing themselves to be the persons of OP snatched vehicle from complainants driver.
Notice given by complainant was not replied by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum.
OP appeared and submitted that as per clause of the loan agreement, the matter was to be referred to Arbitrator for Arbitration. Learned District Forum dismissed application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by OP on account of non-appearance of OP and allowed complaint ex-parte and directed OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and further awarded Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not given any opportunity to file written submissions and to lead evidence and learned District Forum has wrongly mentioned in the order that both the parties led evidence and both the parties were heard and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded back to District Forum. Learned Counsel for the respondent also admitted that by inadvertence, learned District forum has recorded that parties led evidence and they were heard, but submitted that on merits order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Perusal of order sheets of District Forum reveals that petitioner has not filed reply to the complaint and filed application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was adjourned from time to time. On 5.2.2007, none appeared for the OP and in such circumstances, his application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed and he was proceeded ex-parte and on next date i.e. 22.3.2007, complainant filed affidavit and later on after hearing complainant, complaint was allowed by District forum. Admittedly, OP was not given any opportunity to file written submissions. After dismissal of application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, learned District Forum should have given opportunity to the OP to file written statement and lead evidence in counter to affidavit filed by the complainant.
Learned District Forum wrongly mentioned in the order that OP contested the complaint, led evidence and he was heard.
Learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute these facts.
6. As learned District Forum decided complaint without giving opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement and to lead evidence and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal without looking to this aspect, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned District Forum.
7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 20.3.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 87 of 2008 Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar Sharma and order of District Forum dated 6.12.2007 is set aside and matter is remanded back to District Forum to decide the complaint after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement and lead evidence with no order as to costs.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District forum on 6.2.2014 and on that date, petitioner shall file its written statement.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k