Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/477/2014

Mr. Sahil Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Preet Arora & Maninder Arora, Adv.

19 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	477 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	11.09.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	19.02.2015

 

 

 

 

1]  Mr.Sahil Puri s/o Mr.Balvinder Singh Puri,

 

2]  Mr.Balvinder Singh Puri s/o Late Shri Lachhman Dass,

 

3]  Mrs.Meena Kumari w/o Mr.Balvinder Singh Puri,

 

    All resident of H.No.93/1, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh 160047

 

             Complainants

Versus

 

The Manager of the Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., SCO No.153-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160018

 

   Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Vikrant Preet Arora, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Nandan Singh, Authorised Agent for Opposite Party

 

 

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

 

1]      The instant complaint has been filed against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service for charging money as interest without disbursement of loan amount.  The complainant has prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to refund the over charged interest amount of Rs.1,38,226/- along with interest and compensation.

 

2]       Though this complaint was admitted on 11.9.2014, but from the perusal of the record, it is evident from Ann.C-6 that the complainant had earlier filed Complaint case No.280 of 2014 against the Opposite Party, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 27.8.2014.  The said order reads as under:-

“Called many times. Neither complainants are present in person nor any authorised agent has appeared on their behalf.  It is already 4.00 PM.  So, this Consumer Complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  After compliance file be consigned.”

 

3]       Even though the grievance of the complainant has not been decided, we do not think that a fresh complaint on the same cause of action be entertained by this Forum in the given circumstances.  In fact the complainants were entitled to file an appeal against the above said order dated 27.8.2014 of this Forum before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh.

 

4]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr, IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) has held as under:-

“36. On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.”

 

5]       Even the Hon’ble State Commission in F.A. No.265/2013 titled as HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Lt. Col.Surat Singh Gill (Retd.) and others, decided on 29.08.2013 has held as under:-

“13.   Firstly, it needs to be determined, as to whether, the complaint, against which the present appeal was preferred, was maintainable or not. The answer to this question is, undoubtedly, in the negative. It is clearly evident from Exhibit R-2, that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint No.214 of 2012, with regard to the same subject matter, and the same was dismissed in default vide the order dated 23.05.2012. It was not a case where the complaint was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh complaint. In Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar (supra),  the principle of law laid down was that the District Foras and the State Commissions have not  been conferred with the powers to set aside the exparte    orders and review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.  In the instant case, the first complaint No.214 of 2012 filed by the complainant was dismissed in default.  The second complaint was, therefore, not maintainable in view of the principle of law laid down in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak case (supra).  The complaint, therefore, deserved dismissal, on this short ground.  The District Forum, thus, erred in entertaining the second complaint”.  

 

6]       Relying on the settled law and factual position, we are of the opinion that this Forum cannot review its own order; as dealing with this complaint on merits, would amount to review of the order by this Forum. The Consumer Protection Act does not empower the District Forum to do so.  Hence, we dismiss this complaint with no order as to costs.  The complainant is at liberty to file appeal against the earlier order dated 27.8.2014 passed by this Forum, before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, along with application seeking condonation of delay for the period spent in the instant complaint, as per law.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.   

Announced

19^th February, 2015   

                                      

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

                                     MEMBER

Om      

                 

 

   

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.477 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 19th day of February, 2015

O R D E R            Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately; the complaint has been dismissed.          After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Madhu Mutneja)
Member	President	Member