AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
[1] This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 18.5.2009 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 13/2008- M/s. Annamallai Finance Limited & Anr. Vs. V.K. Kunhimon; by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
[2] Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased a 95 model Bajaj Matador F/307 vehicle under hire purchase agreement dated 7.12.1995 from the opposite parties/ respondent. The loan availed was Rs. 1,80,000/- and as per agreement the amount to be paid was fixed as Rs. 2,81,000/- and he repaid Rs. 2,62,440/- The vehicle met with an accident and the complainant authorized the opposite parties to receive the own damage insurance claim amount of Rs. 18,660/- and thus by adjusting this amount the entire amount has been paid as on 27.10.1999 but the opposite parties directed the complainant to pay Rs. 18,660/- immediately and on 6.11.1999 the vehicle was repossessed by the opposite parties by force. The complainant filed a suit before the Magistrate court Ponnani and later he withdrew the suit. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complainant was chronic defaulter and as per the hire purchase agreement, they were entitled to claim additional financial charges, interest and were also entitled to take possession of vehicle in case of default in payment in instalments. It was further submitted that payment received from Insurance Co. for own damage was only Rs. 10,440/- instead of Rs. 18,660/-. It was further submitted that District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 2,42,769/- with 9% interest alongwith cost of Rs. 1,500/-. Appeal filed by opposite party was allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed alongwith application for condonation of delay.
[3] Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
[4] As per office report, there is delay of 133 days in filing revision petition and in application for condonation of delay, period of delay to be condoned has not been mentioned. In the application, it has been mentioned that certified copy of order dated 18.5.2009 was received on 29.8.2009 which was received by petitioner in September, 2009 and opinion from Advocate could be received in November, 2009 and ultimately, revision petition was filed in 2010. If it is presumed that certified copy of order was delivered by State Commission on 29.8.2009 then there would be delay of only 53 days in filing revision petition. As there is delay of only 53 days in filing revision petition, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing revision petition subject to depositing cost of Rs. 2,000/- with Legal-Aid Account of this Commission.
[5] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of relation of consumer and service provider between the parties, Learned State Commission wrongly observed that complaint was not maintainable, hence, revision petition be allowed and matter may be remanded back to State Commission to decide appeal on merits. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petition be dismissed.
[6] It is not disputed that complainant availed loan facility from opposite party for finance of vehicle and hire purchase agreement was executed between the parties. In such circumstances, there was relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and complaint filed by the complainant before District Forum was maintainable. No doubt, complainant has to prove deficiency on the part of opposite party while exercising right of repossession of the vehicle and only after that compensation can be granted but merely on the basis of hire purchase agreement, it cannot be said that dispute can be settled only by Civil Court and consumer fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal only on this ground without deciding appeal on merits. In such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside.
[7] Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 18.5.2009 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 13/2008- M/s. Annamallai Finance Limited & Anr. Vs. V.K. Kunhimon; is set aside and matter is remanded back to Learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.
[8] Parties are directed to appeal before State Commission on 16.9.2015.