Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

1022/07

Ratan Kumar Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baijnamath Prasad PAtel - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vikas Rai

04 Oct 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2007

(Arising out of order dated 29.03.2007 passed in C.C.No.392/2004 by the District Commission Jabalpur)

 

1. RATAN KUMAR SONI,

    S/O SHRI R. K. SONI,

    R/O 1027, STATE BANK COLONY,

    GARHA, JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

2. ANUJ KUMAR JAIN,

    S/O SHRI ANAND KUMAR JAIN,

    R/O HIG-38, BAIJNAMATH NEHRU NAGAR,

    JABALPUR.                                                                                                    …          APPELLANTS

 

Versus

                 

1. BAIJNATH PRASAD PATEL,

    S/O LATE SHRI PARAMLAL PATEL,

    R/O 68/39, I TYPE, MEDICAL COLLEGE COLONY,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

2. CHOTTEOLAL DUMAR,

    S/O LATE SHRI MEKU DUMAR

    & SMT. RAMBAI W/O SHRI CHOTTELAL,

    R/O BHERO NAGAR, TRIPURI WARD, JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

3. SHARDA PRASAD MISHRA

    S/O LATE SHRI MAHADEV PRASAD MISHRA,

    R/O 323, I TYPE MEDICAL COLLEGE COLONY, JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

4. SURESH KUMAR NAMDEV,

    S/O LATE SHRI BADRI PRASAD NAMDEV,

    R/O EMARTI TALAB KE PASS, GARHA, JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

5. PREMLAL BALMIKI,

    S/O LATE SHRI GHASITE BALMIKI,

    & SMT. NIMIYA BAI W/O SHRI PREMLAL,

    R/O TRIPURI WARD, JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

6. STATE BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

    STATE BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH-GADHA, JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

7. STATE BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,

    STATE BANK OF INDIA, KRISHI UPAJ MANDI BRANCH,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

8. CENT BANK HOME FINANCE LIMITED

    (BRANCH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA)

    THROUGH ITS MANAGER, CENT BANK HOME FINANCE LTD.

    662, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                       …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                :      MEMBER          

 

                 

-2-

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

      Shri Vikas Rai, learned counsel for the appellants.

      None for the respondent no.1 to 5.

      Shri Vijay Shahani, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 & 7.

      Shri Manoj Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent no.8.

                                            

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 04.10.2021)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Presiding Member:

 

                        This appeal by the opposite party no. 3 and 4/appellants is directed against the order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jabalpur (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 392/2004 whereby the complaint filed by the complainants/respondent no. 1 to 5 has been partly allowed.

2.                Heard learned counsel for parties on IA-1 & IA-2, applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the appellants.

3.                The appellants by way of said application have filed sale-deeds, sale certificates issued by Chief Manager (SARC), State Bank of India, Jabalpur along with map and sale certificates issued by State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Resolution Center (SARC), Jabalpur etc. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the said documents are necessary and important for fair adjudication of the matter, which could not filed before the District Commission. The appellants have filed sale deed dated 20.03.2002 and another sale deed dated 20.01.2003 and 27.02.2003 along with sale certificates dated 11.05.2012 and certain other documents as referred to in the said application. 

-3-

4.                As we carefully peruse the documents filed along with the application, it is observed that the properties in question have been sold in the auction by the banks, which took place under Securitization and Reconstruction of Final Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

5.                Learned counsel for appellants submits that the documents filed along with the application areessential for fair adjudication of the dispute between the parties and for passing the appropriate order in regard to the relief claimed.  In addition to this, counsel for appellant also argued on the point of maintainability stating that the complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable.  He argued that this matter cannot be termed as ‘class action’ as envisaged under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’) as different complainants have filed joint complaint in respect of their respective agreements.  Learned counsel filed judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikrant Singh Malik Vs Supertech Limited & Ors. IV(2020) CPJ 45 (SC) and judgements passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava & Ors Vs Dwarkadish Projects Pvt. Ltd. III (2018) CPJ 119 (NC) and in Abhishek Roy & Ors. Vs Unitech Ltd. III (2017) CPJ 316 (NC) in order to support his submission.

6.                On due consideration, the application is allowed. Documents filed along with the application are ordered to be taken on record.

7.                In view of the aforesaid, we are of a considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh. The question regarding maintainability of the complaint is also kept open. 

-4-

The impugned order is therefore set-aside and the matter is remanded to the District Commission.

8.                Record of the case be sent at the earliest to the District Commission. Copy of IA-1, along with accompanied documents be also sent to the District Commission along with record after retaining original of the same in the appeal. Parties are free to file additional evidence in support of their contentions as and when directed by the District Commission.

9.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 03.11.2021.

10.               The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the observation made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission, while passing an order.

11.               With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of.  However, no order as to costs.

 

                (Dr. Monika Malik)                                 (S. S. Bansal)               

                 Presiding Member                                     Member