State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Pawar Automobiles & Cholamandalam ... vs Shri Murlidhar M.Jadhal And Anr. on 4 February, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 795 OF 2007 Date of filing : 25/06/2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.60 OF 2007 Date of order : 04/02/2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, NASIK @ MISC.APPLICATION NO.1079/2007 M/s.Pawar Automobiles Prop.Mohan Pawar R/o.Plot no.4, Hanuman Nagar Opp.Rasbihari School, Adgaon Naka Panchavati, Nasik ..Appellant/org.O.P.no.1 V/s. 1. Shri Murlidhar M.Jadhal R/o.N-42-C-1/5/4, CIDCO,Nasik .Respondent/org.complainant 2. Cholamandalam Investments & Finance Co.Ltd. Through Chairman Kavita Complex, 2nd floor Nasik Road, Above Deolali Vyapari Bank College Road, Nasik ..Respondents/org.O.P.no.2 AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 801 OF 2007 Date of filing : 25/06/2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.60 OF 2007 Date of order : 04/02/2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, NASIK @ MISC.APPLICATION NO.1087/2007 Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd. Kavita Complex, 2nd floor Nasik Road, Above Deolali Vyapari Bank College Road, Nasik ..Appellant/org.O.P.no.2 V/s. 1. Shri Murlidhar Madhav Rao Jadhal R/o.N-42-C-1/5/4, CIDCO,Nasik .Respondent/org.complainant 2. M/s.Pawar Automobiles Prop.Mohan Pawar R/o.Plot no.4, Hanuman Nagar Opp.Rasbihari School, Adgaon Naka Panchavati, Nasik ..Respondent/org.O.P.no.1 Corum: Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Present: Mrs.Anita Marathe-Advocate for org.complainant.
Mr.K.B.Chandvadkar-Advocate for org.O.P.no.1 Mr.S.Hussain -Advocate for org.O.P.no.2.
: ORAL ORDER:
Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1. These two appeals have been filed by original O.P.nos.1&2 aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Nasik in consumer complaint no.60/07, whereby District Consumer Forum, Nasik was pleased to decide the complaint ex-parte against both the non-applicants and directed both of them to give possession of Eicher Tempo to the complainant within one month and to pay Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and also directed them to pay cost of Rs.3000/-.
As such both the O.Ps have filed these appeals separately challenging the same order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
2. Heard Mrs.Anita Marathe-Advocate for org.complainant. Mr.K.B. Chandvadkar-Advocate for org.O.P.no.1 and Mr.S.Hussain -Advocate for org.O.P.no.2.
3. We are finding that the Forum below decided the complaint ex-parte, but in the course of arguments, we were told by both the O.Ps/ appellants herein that it was the complainant/respondent, who committed default in making payment of loan installments. Because of the default committed, as per terms in the Loan Agreement, appellant Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co.Ltd. took the asset vehicle in possession and it is the case of appellant/Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. that they have sold the vehicle to M/s.Pawar Automobiles. But anyhow they could not contest the matter, because notice received by its office was misplaced and as such, ex parte award came to be passed against them.
4. Same is the statement made by M/s.Pawar Automobies with whom presently the Eitcher tempo of the complainant is kept. We are of the view that this complaint requires to be decided on merits. Normally we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by District Consumer Forum, even ex-parte, but when some merit has been shown and when we were satisfied that it was the respondent Mr.Murlidhar Madhavrao Jadhal, who committed defaults in paying EMIs and which entitled the Financial Company to repossess the vehicle and accordingly, they had repossessed the vehicle and sold it to M/s.Pawar Automobiles, there appears to be some substance in the points raised by original O.Ps in these two appeals. If the complainant had not committed default, order should have been passed in favour of complainant directing return of vehicle with compensation of Rs.1 lakh. So the order on face of it is appearing to be perverse and requires to be interfered with by allowing these appeals. It is also required to be quashed for the reason that both the O.Ps should be given chance to contest the matter. Hence we are inclined to pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Both the appeals are allowed.
2. Impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum Nasik is quashed and set aside.
3. Each appellant shall pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards cost.
4. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member Ms.