State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Cholamandalam D.B. S. Finance vs Jogender Singh on 8 October, 2010
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G)
Appeal No.416/2010
Instituted on : 02/07/2010
M/s Cholamandalam D.B.S. Finance Co. Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and
having its Corporate Office at Chennai.
For Branch Manager, Second Floor,
Chouhan Estate, Supela, Near Mourya Talkies,
Shop No.5, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G)
Through : Mr. Adil Ahmed,
Dy. Legal Manager of Appellant Company. ...... Appellant.
Vs.
Jogender Singh, S/o Sardar Jagat Singh,
Bhawani Nagar, Quarter No.16, Street No.1,
Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G) ....... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri B. Gopakumar, for appellant.
None for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 08/10/2010 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 03/06/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G) (hereinafter called as "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.51/2009, whereby allowing the complaint of the complainant / respondent, the appellant / Financer, has been directed to return back the seized Truck and in case it is not possible to return that Truck, // 2 // then pay the cost of the vehicle and till payment of that amount, pay Rs.3,000/- per month by way of compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. and also cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-.
2. It is not in dispute that Truck, in question bearing registration No.C.G.08/B/0928 was financed by the appellant and it was purchased by the respondent under a Loan Agreement. It was the case of the complainant before the District Forum that the Truck was purchased for livelihood of his family and for providing employment to his sons. It suffered a road accident and while it was in the motor garage under repair, from there it was illegally possessed by the appellant Finance Company without any reasonable cause, though complainant was paying the installments in time, but for few occasions when the installments could not be paid in time. It has been alleged that appellant/Finance Company committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, so a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.
3. In reply of the complaint, the appellant herein averred that respondent was deficient in paying the installments of the financed amount and therefore, as per terms of the agreement, the vehicle was repossessed by it. It has also been averred by the appellant in written version that complainant was not a „consumer‟ as defined in Section // 3 // 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, at his instance, consumer complaint was not maintainable.
4. The District Forum has disagreed with the contention of the appellant/O.P. and recorded the findings that respondent was a „consumer‟ and that he had not violated terms of the agreement. On the basis of these findings, District Forum passed an award in favour of the respondent/complainant.
5. As none appeared for the respondent /complainant before us in spite of service of notice, so we proceeded to decide this appeal on the basis of arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and on the basis of documents filed before us as well as before the District Forum.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards order dated 05/05/2010 of this Commission in case of M/s Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd.& anr. Vs. Joginder Singh, in Appeal No.344/2008, which was filed by the same Financer against the same complainant in respect of another vehicle No. C.G.08-B-0927. It has been argued by counsel for the appellant that this Commission has held in this judgment that the respondent was not a „consumer‟, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because he was having more than one commercial vehicles and was running a transport // 4 // business. Apart from it, counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention towards documents, which have been filed by the appellant at the appellate stage to show that respondent was in fact having many more other vehicles, which were financed by other companies also including I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited.
7. From the judgment dated 05/05/2010 passed in Appeal No.344/2008, it appears that vehicle No.C.G.08-B-0927 was also purchased by the same complainant with the help of finance provided by the appellant company. The statement of account of I.C.I.C.I.Bank Limited shows that, that Bank has also financed the same complainant for purchasing the vehicle bearing no.C.G.08-B-1524.
8. On the basis of these documents, prima facie, it can be said that the complainant/respondent was having more than one vehicle, but because, these documents have been filed before us for the first time at the appellate stage and the complainant/respondent, could not get any chance to file any evidence in rebuttal, therefore, before recording any finding on the basis of these documents, we prefer to provide a chance to the complainant/respondent also for rebuttal of these documents by allowing this appeal and by remanding the case back to the District Forum.
// 5 //
9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to take into consideration the documents filed by the appellant before us at the appellate stage and also to provide an opportunity to the complainant/respondent for rebutting these documents. After doing this exercise, fresh finding on the question as to whether respondent/complainant is a „consumer‟ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not, is to be recorded. Findings on other issues may also be recorded afresh without being influenced by the impugned order, which has already been set aside. The appellant is directed to appear before District Forum, Rajnandgaon on 12/11/2010. District Forum will issue notice to the respondent/complainant for next date of hearing and thereafter will decide the matter afresh by doing this exercise within 3 months. No order as to cost.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/10/2010 /10/2010 /10/2010