Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/06/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.196/2005 Shri Subhash Ramchandra Kadam V/s. M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (‘the Forum’ in short).
2. It is the grievance against the financial institution from whom the appellant-complainant had taken financial assistance to buy a Scorpio car. On the ground of alleged default, respondents/original opponent Nos.1&2 had taken possession of the vehicle and then sold it to respondent/original opponent No.3. Subsequently, this consumer complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents/opponent Nos.1&2 and compensation is claimed.
3. We heard the parties present.
4. Respondent/original opponent No.1-financial institution preferred to remain absent at the time of hearing of this appeal. Respondent/original opponent No.2 too is the person directly involved taking possession of the vehicle as alleged by the appellant/complainant. Respondent/opponent No.3- Mr.Noor Ibrahim F. Shaikh is a third party purchaser of a vehicle from the financial institution. In fact no deficiency in service in the background of the circumstances of the case, could be alleged against the purchaser of the vehicle.
5. The Forum, as per the impugned order, upholding the case of financial institution held that the appellant/complainant was a defaulter and that with his consent only the vehicle was sold and dismissed the complaint. This particular reasoning of the Forum is seriously challenged by the appellant/complainant. According to him only after expiry of the insurance policy, highhandedly, the financial institution alleged that there were defaults, took possession of the vehicle and sold the same. It is the case of appellant, as argued before us on his behalf that there were no defaults and there is no reason for him to give consent to sell the vehicle as alleged by the financial institution. It is further submitted that the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant in evidence and other documents are ignored by the Forum and thus, the Forum arrived at a wrong conclusion and since the Forum failed to consider evidence tendered, there is miscarriage of justice.
6. After perusing the cryptic reasoning given and the fact that the complainant alleged that he had tendered the evidence which is not considered, we find substance in the grievance made on behalf of the appellant/complainant. Complainant tried to place on record the evidence tendered in the case, but as revealed from a reply from the Forum stating that the original Record & Proceeding is not traceable. Appellant/complainant also wanted to lead additional evidence for which some documents are placed on record at the time of hearing of an appeal. This issue can also be properly dealt with by the Forum after remand as to whether such additional evidence should be allowed or not. The respondent/org. opponent No.2 fairly conceded that it would be fit and just in the given circumstances to remand the matter whereby both the parties would get an appropriate and proper opportunity to present their respective case and thereby to ensure proper justice. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30/06/2007 is quashed and set aside.
2. Consumer complaint No.196/2005 is remitted back to the Forum in the light of the observations made in body of the order.
3. Both the parties shall appear before the Forum on 02/06/2011 and on their appearance, hearing of the consumer complaint be expedited.
4. Record & Proceeding be traced and if necessary steps to reconstruct the record be taken.
5. In the given circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.
6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 2nd May 2011.
