Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/22/8

CAPRI GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. KULDEEP VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.MUKESH DUBEY

18 Oct 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                              REVISION PETITION NO. 08 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 26.11.2021 passed in C.C.No.33/2021 by the District Commission Raisen)     

 

CAPRI GOLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED,

REGISTERED OFFICE-502, TOWER A

PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, LOWER PAREL,

MUMBAI (MS)

BRANCH OFFICE-THIRD FLOOR,

CITY CENTRE, ABOVE VISHAL MEGA MART,

ZONE-I, M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)

THROUGH DHIRENDRA BHADORIA,

AUTHORISED OFFICER.                                                          …          PETITIONER.

 

Versus

 

1. SMT. KULDEEP VERMA,

    W/O LATE SHRI KARAN SINGH VERMA

    D/O SHRI ASHOK SEN,

    R/O 694, WARD NO.-9, MANDIDEEP,

    TEHSIL-GOHARGANJ, DISTRICT-RAISEN (M.P.)

   

2. BRANCH MANAGER,

    TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

    SECOND FLOOR, PLOT NO.66 B,

    AMIT COMPLEX, NEAR PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,

    ZONE-II, M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                   ….          RESPONDENTS.                                                                      

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                             :    PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLRE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY                   :    MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA                :    MEMBER    

                 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

 

      Shri Mukesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri L. D. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

      Ms. Mona Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

                                                                   

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 18.10.2020)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member.

                   This revision petition under Section 47(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by the opposite party no.1/petitioner against the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

-2-

Redressal Commission, Raisen (For short District Commission) in C.C.No.33/2021.

2.                Facts of the case in brief as stated by the complainant/respondent no.1 are that the complainant/respondent no.1’s late husband Karan Singh Verma took financial help from the opposite party no.1/petitioner for a sum of Rs.21,87,611/- and he constructed a house in Mandideep. Out of the aforesaid loan amount, her late husband insured the loan amount for a sum of Rs.15,19,890/- with the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-insurance company. It is submitted that her late husband regularly deposited the repayment of loan since 2017. However, on 08.12.2019 he died. It is further submitted that since a sum of Rs.15,19,890/- was insured with the opposite party no.2-insurance company, on the death of her husband, the insurance company ought to have deposited the said amount with the petitioner-finance company but the insurance company committed deficiency in service in not depositing the said amount with the petitioner-financer. The petitioner threatened her for auction of the house in question as repayment of loan amount was not made. She therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief of direction to opposite party no.2-insurance company to give insured amount to the petitioner as also giving direction to petitioner, that after adjustment of

-3-

amount taken from the insurance company the rest amount be recovered from her in monthly instalments.

3.                The District Commission vide impugned order dated 26.11.2021 at the admission stage without issuing notice to the opposite parties, allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC and directed that the auction of the house in question be stayed till further orders. It is against this order, the opposite party no.1/petitioner-finance has filed this present revision.

4.                Challenging the aforesaid order in the present revision petition learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in fact the complainant/respondent no.1 along with her late husband Karan Singh Verma took financial help from the opposite party no.1/petitioner for a proprietorship firm M/S Nano Enterprises. On 30.05.2017, the petitioner sanctioned a loan of Rs.21,87,611/- for which a house admeasuring 103 sq.m. belongs to the complainant and her late husband, situated at 9, Prem Nagar, Mandideep District-Raisen was mortgaged. The loan was insured by the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-insurance company. Despite repeated notices and reminders, the complainant failed to make repayment of loan, therefore, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

-4-

2002 (SURFAESI) was issued to the complainant and an auction notice of the house in question under the SURFAESI Act was also published in newspaper. He further argued that even when the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission, the District Commission ought not to have passed the impugned order staying the proceedings of auction. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 supported the impugned order and argued that the respondent no.2-insurance company did not pay the insured amount to the petitioner on death of her husband and if that amount could have been paid, the petitioner could not have initiated the proceedings for auction.

6.                Learned counsel for the respondent no.2-insurance company argued that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant approached the District Commission against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The District Commission has erred in entertaining the complaint and passing impugned order.

7.                As we carefully peruse the record of the District Commission, we observe that at the admission stage, on 26.11.2021, the District Commission at the admission stage, without issuing notice to the opposite parties, allowed

-5-

the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC by the complainant without hearing the opposite parties and passed an order directing that the auction of the house in question be stayed till further orders. The District Commission ought to have issued notice to the opposite parties and after considering the reply and documents and after hearing both parties could have proceeded in the matter.

8.                On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Commissions are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute.

9.                Thus, in our considered view, as per provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it is a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission in our revision jurisdiction as the District Commission has committed grave error in exceeding in exercising its jurisdiction by not giving an opportunity to opposite parties to file reply with regard to maintainability of the complaint more particularly, when proceedings under SARFAESI Act have been initiated by the opposite party no.1/petitioner against the complainant/respondent no.1.

10.              Needless to mention that without influencing the order passed by us, the District Commission may proceed further after giving

 

-6-

opportunities to opposite parties to contest the aforesaid application and hearing both parties may decide the aforesaid application in presence of opposite parties.

11.              We, therefore, set-aside the impugned order and allow this revision petition. However, no order as to costs.

  (A.K. Tiwari)         (Dr.Srikant Pandey)    (D. K. Shrivastava)         

      Presiding Member            Member                      Member