S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/162

DATE OF FILING : 29.04.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 12.08.2009

APPELLANTS


1. Mr. Pranab Kumar Bhattacharyya
S/o. Mr. Niren Bhattacharyya
Of Krishnapur Road, Natagarh, Kadamtala,
P.O. Natagarh, Kolkata-700 113
At present resides at No. 4, D.B.Nagar,
Basakbagan, P.O. Sodpur
Kolkata-700 110.
2. Mr. Dipak Kumar Das
S/o. Mr. Nagendra Nath Das
Of Krishnapur Road, Natagarh, Kadamtala,
P.O. Natagarh, Kolkata-700 113.

RESPONDENTS

1. The Authorized Signatory, I N G Vysya Bank
Tobacco House, 2nd Floor,
1 & 2, Old Court House Corner,
Kolkata-700 001.
2. The Branch Manager
I N G Vysya Bank
1 & 2, Tobacco House, 2nd Floor,
Kolkata-700 001.

BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY
MEMBER : MR. S.COARI

FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.L.Pakrashy, Ld. Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Sk. Mehboob Rahman, Ld. Advocate

: O R D E R :

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 2.4.09 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No. 136 of 2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint on contest without any order as to cost.

The complainants/Appellants’ case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainants purchased a vehicle (truck) for a consideration of Rs. 7,83,032/- from French Motor Car Company by investing Rs. 76,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 6,90,000/- was financed by the Ops/Bank. It was agreed between the parties that the entire loan amount would be satisfied in 47 equal installments @ Rs. 17,382/- per month and the complainants went on paying installments regularly till January, 2007 when the complainants became defaulter in respect of two installments. According to the complainants’ case, as there were some difficulties in the complainants’ business, the installments could not be paid. But immediately thereafter the complainant approached the Ops/Bank with the defaulted installments along with interest. But for reasons best known to the Bank the same was not accepted and on the other hand, the Bank forcibly took possession of the vehicle and ultimately in spite of repeated requests made on behalf of the complainants to accept the defaulted periods’ installments and resume the transaction, the Bank disposed of the vehicle in question after terminating the contract between the parties. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such high-handed action on the part of the Bank the complaint was filed for redressal.

The Ops/Bank contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material averments of the complaint contending inter alia that in clear violation of the agreed terms and conditions between the parties the complainants did not pay the installments and were not regular in paying the installments also. The Ops bore with the complainants to a great extent, but ultimately when the complainants were not paying the installments regularly they had to take possession of the vehicle in question and disposed it of for some consideration though the same was inadequate towards satisfaction of the outstanding dues. The Ops also took a plea to the effect that the complainants were not Consumers and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.

The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint did not consider the controversy between the parties in details and has simply observed that the complainants/Appellants did not come under the purview of Consumer as per Consumer Protection Act and dismissed the petition of complaint.

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 discussed above.

DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing we have heard the Ld. Advocates for both sides at length and have also gone through the impugned judgement and the pleadings of the parties and find that the Ld. District Forum has observed that the Appellants/Complainants did not stand as Consumers as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act and accordingly dismissed the petition of complaint. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record and find from the materials that have come before the Ld. District Forum that it was not proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to adjudge the Appellants/Complainants to be not Consumers under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In our opinion, in a transaction of present nature the complainants were very much Consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. As the Ld. District Forum did not consider other aspects of the controversy between the parties, we think it would be just and proper if the case is sent back on open remand to the Ld. District Forum with a direction to dispose of the case on merit. However, we are also of the opinion that while disposing of the case on remand, the Ld. District Forum need not take into consideration any observation made by us while disposing of the present Appeal. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.

Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal stands allowed on contest but without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement is set aside. The case be sent back on remand to the Ld. District Forum with a direction to hear out both sides at length and dispose of the petition of complaint on merit taking into consideration all the points raised by both sides as per law.

MEMBER MEMBER