State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Family Credit Limited vs Joydeb Roy on 24 September, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/782/2012 (Arisen out of the judgement dt. 30.7.2012 of DCDRF, North 24 Pargans in C.C.Case No. 360/2010) DATE OF FILING : 18.10.2012 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 24.09.2013 APPELLANT Family Credit Limited Technopolish, 7th Floor, A Wing, Plot No. 4, Block-BP, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091. RESPONDENT Joydeb Roy Harisava, Rishi Arobindo Road Barasat, 24-Parganas (North), Barasat Kolkata-700 030. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : None : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 30.7.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, in C.C.Case No. 360/2010, wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint in part on contest against the OP with cost of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the complainant and also directing the OP to pay penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice, which was to be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund.
There was also a direction that for non-compliance of the Forums order the OP shall be liable to pay Rs. 1,00/- per day, which was to be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund, out of which 50% will be paid to the complainant.
The case of the complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant purchased a Hero Honda Pleasure two-wheeler for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/- from the OP through Hire Purchase Scheme on condition to repay the amount within two years by monthly instalments @ Rs. 1,696/- per month. According to the complainant, in spite of the fact that the complainant has repaid the amount in full, the OP harassed the complainant by initiating different proceedings including an arbitration proceeding, which, according to the complainant, tantamounted to unfair trade practice and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
The OP contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying and disputing all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending, inter alia, that after the initiation of the arbitration proceeding the complainant repaid the loan amount and as such, the OP did not press for the award obtained from the arbitration proceeding. The present petition of complaint having been filed as an after-thought the same was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS None was present on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent and thus we heard the Appeal ex parte.
At the time of hearing it has been submitted by the OP/Appellant that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision, which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, when it is an admitted position that the Appellant did appear before the arbitration proceeding and on payment of the entire amount by the Respondent/Complainant the Appellant/OP issued a no-objection certificate and that the OP has also not enforced the award obtained from the arbitration proceeding, question of initiating the Consumer Complaint is not at all permissible under the law and on this score alone the Appeal should be allowed and the petition of complaint should be dismissed.
We have duly perused the materials on record including the impugned judgement. When the complainant has already appeared before the arbitration proceeding and after the initiation of the arbitration proceeding has cleared off the dues, question of initiating another proceeding before the Consumer Court is not at all permissible under the law. Keeping in mind this proposition we find merit in the present Appeal, which, in our opinion, should be allowed. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed ex parte but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement is set aside. Consequently, the petition of complaint stands dismissed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT