State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indiasheler Finance vs Narangi Devi on 17 December, 2025
FA/540/2024
India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, JAIPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO: 540/2024
India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd.
Through Director/ Manager/ Authorized Representative,
Office: 6th Floor, Plot No. 15, Industrial Area, Sector-44,
Gurugram, Haryana, and 200 Feet Bye Pass, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur
...Appellant
-VERSUS-
1. Narangi Devi
W/o Late Shri Babulal Meena Caste Meena R/o 115, 116
Royal City, Kukas Amer, District Jaipur, Pin Code 302028.
Presently Residing Sirsi Road, Panchyawala, Jaipur.
302028
...Respondent/ Complainant
2. Edelweiss Tokio Group Credit Protection
6th Floor, Tower 3, Wing B, Kohinoor City, Kirol Road,
Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070
Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.2
Before
HON'BLE MR. MUKESH - PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. A.K. AGARWAL - MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. R. N. SARSWAT - MEMBER
Allowed Page 1 of 10
FA/540/2024
India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For Complainant: Absent For Respondent No. 2: Mr. Manoj Nayak, Advocate Dated: 17.12.2025 Judgment Authored by: Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Sarswat - Member Complainant's Version The Respondent/Complainant stated before the District Commission that her husband, Late Shri Babulal Meena, had availed a loan of Rs.11,00,000/- from the Petitioners on 29.05.2019, repayable in monthly installments of Rs.16,802/- for 180 months.
It was further stated that the loan was insured through Opposite Party No. 2 (Insurance Company) and that, in the event of the borrower's death, the outstanding loan liability would be covered by the insurer, along with compensation to the complainant.
The borrower passed away on 07.03.2024. The insurance company processed only Rs.6,11,000/- towards the claim. After adjusting this amount to the loan account, the Petitioners calculated the remaining outstanding dues at approximately Rs.4,00,000/-, which the insurance company declined to pay.
Proceedings before the DCDRC The Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint No. 386/2024, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jaipur (hereinafter, DCDRC), on 03.07.2024, alleging:
Allowed Page 2 of 10FA/540/2024 India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
Deficiency of service by the insurance company for not paying the entire outstanding amount, Wrongful recovery actions by the Petitioners despite partial claim settlement, Harassment due to non-settlement of the balance amount.
She also filed Misc. Application No. 55/2024 seeking a stay on loan recovery until disposal of the complaint.
The Appellant appeared before the District Commission and submitted that:
They only provide loan facilities and do not compel any borrower to avail insurance from a particular insurer.
They are not liable for the acts/omissions of the insurance company.
The amount received under the insurance claim was duly adjusted.
The remaining dues are recoverable from the borrower's legal heirs as per the loan agreement.
They also raised a preliminary objection that the dispute pertains to loan recovery secured by a mortgage; hence, the Respondent does not fall within the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act.
Order of the DCDRC The DCDRC, by its order dated 18.09.2024, allowed the stay application and directed:
"Till the disposal of the complaint, no recovery shall be made from the complainant."
As a result, the Petitioners have been restrained from recovering the outstanding loan dues until final adjudication of the complaint.Allowed Page 3 of 10
FA/540/2024 India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
Appeal On 17.10.2024, the present Appeal was filed against the impugned order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the DCDRC in Misc. Application No. 55/2024 in Consumer Complaint No. 386/2024, whereby the DCDRC allowed the stay application and restrained the Appellants from recovering any amount from the Respondent till the disposal of the Complaint.
Points for determination Upon perusal of the record, the pleadings of the parties, and the impugned order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the DCDRC, the following points arise for determination before this Hon'ble Commission:
1. Whether the DCDRC erred in granting a Temporary Injunction without examining or recording findings on the mandatory three parameters, namely:
(i) prima facie case, (ii) irreparable loss, and (iii) balance of convenience, which were neither pleaded in the stay application nor discussed in the impugned order.
2. Whether the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside on the ground that no cogent or legally sustainable reasons were assigned by the DCDRC, except for a vague observation that the relief was being granted "in the interest of justice."
3. Whether the impugned order qualifies as a "non-speaking order," lacking essential reasoning and failing to address the submissions, objections, and legal contentions raised by the Appellants.
4. Whether the manner in which Misc. Application No. 55/2024 was disposed of--by listing it for arguments and pronouncing the order on the very same day--which indicates procedural irregularity and warrants interference by this Commission.
Allowed Page 4 of 10FA/540/2024 India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
5. Whether the DCDRC failed to consider material issues such as jurisdiction, maintainability, and the contractual nature of the dispute while granting the interim relief, and whether such issues require fresh examination by the District Commission upon remand.
6. Whether the restraint imposed on recovery of admitted outstanding dues, without recording supporting reasons, amounts to arbitrary interference with contractual rights and therefore necessitates reconsideration by the District Commission in accordance with law.
Findings of the Commission The Commission has examined the rival submissions, the record, and the impugned order of the District Commission. Its findings are as follows:
1. Non-examination of the Mandatory Principles The foremost infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 is that the DCDRC granted the relief of Temporary Injunction without examining or recording findings on the three well-settled principles governing interim relief, namely:
1. Existence of a prima facie case,
2. Likelihood of irreparable injury, and
3. Balance of convenience.
The stay application filed by the Complainant did not contain specific pleadings or foundational averments in support of these three criteria. The impugned order also does not reflect any conscious consideration or application of these mandatory tests.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, categorically held that:
"The court must be satisfied on the existence of the three ingredients before granting an injunction. An injunction granted without such satisfaction cannot be sustained."Allowed Page 5 of 10
FA/540/2024 India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
Similarly, in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that interim injunctions cannot be issued as a matter of course, but only after judicial scrutiny of the above parameters.
In the present case, none of these principles has been adverted to, much less applied. This omission goes to the root of the matter and renders the order legally untenable.
Therefore, this point is answered in favor of the Appellant.
2. Suffering from Non-Application of Mind A bare reading of the impugned order reveals that the DCDRC has merely observed that the relief is being granted "in the interest of justice." No reasons, no analysis, and no discussion of rival submissions are found in the order. Such an approach amounts to non-application of the mind, which vitiates the order entirely.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 held that:
"Reason is the soul of justice. The absence of reasons renders an order unsustainable."
Granting an injunction, without even a minimum level of reasoning, violates the settled principles of judicial decision-making.
Therefore, this point is answered in favor of the Appellant.
3. Non-Speaking Order The impugned order fails to consider or deal with the objections raised by the Appellants, including issues of jurisdiction, maintainability, contractual rights, and adjustment of the insurance claim amount. There is no discussion, analysis, or acknowledgment of these submissions.
Allowed Page 6 of 10FA/540/2024 India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
An order that does not disclose the reasoning process or address the contentions of the parties is a non-speaking order, and such an order is unsustainable.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 981 held that: "An order which is not supported by reasons is no order in the eyes of law."
Therefore, this point is answered in favor of the Appellant.
4. Procedural Irregularity The record shows that Misc. Application No. 55/2024 was listed for arguments on 18.09.2024, and on the same day, the order granting the injunction was pronounced.
While same-day disposal is not inherently improper, in the present case, such haste, combined with the complete absence of reasoning, creates a legitimate concern that the matter was not examined with the care required for granting a prohibitory order affecting contractual rights.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 held: "Justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done."
Here, the manner of disposal suggests a predisposition to allow the application, which compromises procedural fairness.
Therefore, this point is answered in favor of the Appellant.
5. Jurisdiction and Maintainability The Appellants raised a preliminary objection that the dispute pertains to loan recovery under a contractual agreement and that the Complainant may not fall within the definition of "consumer" in this context. The impugned interim order does not deal with this jurisdictional issue at all.
Allowed Page 7 of 10FA/540/2024 India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
Since the District Commission did not adjudicate this issue and since this appeal pertains only to an interim order, it would not be appropriate for this Commission to decide the jurisdictional question at this stage. This issue is left open for fresh adjudication by the District Commission upon remand.
Therefore, this point is not decided on merits and is left open.
6. Restraint on Recovery The District Commission has restrained the recovery of admitted outstanding dues without assigning any reasons or discussing the contractual obligations of the parties. However, since the merits of the underlying dispute were not adjudicated by the District Commission and this appeal concerns only an interim order, this Commission does not express any opinion on the validity of recovery actions.
The issue requires a fresh, reasoned determination by the District Commission upon remand.
Therefore, this point is not decided on merits and is left open.
Conclusion For the reasons recorded above, this Commission holds that:
1. The impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmities, including non-application of judicial mind, absence of reasons, and failure to examine mandatory principles governing interim relief.
2. The impugned order is a non-speaking, procedurally irregular, and unsustainable interim order.
3. However, as this appeal concerns only an interim order, and the District Commission has not adjudicated the Allowed Page 8 of 10 FA/540/2024 India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
substantive issues, this Commission does not express any opinion on the merits of the complaint.
4. The appropriate course, therefore, is to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the DCDRC for fresh consideration of the stay application in accordance with the law.
Order Accordingly, The Appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the DCDRC in Misc. Application No. 55/2024 in Consumer Complaint No. 386/2024 is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the DCDRC, Jaipur II, for fresh consideration of the stay application, strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the Findings above.
While reconsidering the application, the DCDRC shall do so strictly in accordance with law by examining the mandatory principles governing the grant of Temporary Injunction, recording specific, cogent, and reasoned findings, duly addressing the submissions and objections raised by both parties, and considering the jurisdictional as well as other substantive issues which were left open by this Commission for fresh adjudication.
The DCDRC shall pass a reasoned and speaking order on the stay application expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of this order.
Allowed Page 9 of 10FA/540/2024 India Shelter Finance Vs. Narangi Devi & Anr.
It is clarified that this Commission has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Complaint, and all substantive issues--including jurisdiction, maintainability, contractual obligations, and recovery rights--are left open for fresh adjudication by the DCDRC.
No order as to costs.
Arun Kumar Agarwal Mukesh Ram Niwas Sarswat (Member) (Presiding Member) (Member) Allowed Page 10 of 10