MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICE Vs. URMILA SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders dtd. 22/2/2012 (Annexure-P/3) and 23/9/2022 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa and the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal respectively. Vide Annexure- P/3 dtd. 22/2/2012, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has passed an order in an execution proceeding directing the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 to hand over the key and No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the respondent no.1/applicant. The said order was challenged before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal and the State Commission, vide its order dtd. 23/9/2022 (Annexure-P/5), has affirmed the order of the District Consumer Forum.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this petition is maintainable in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Housing Board vs. K.A. Nagamani passed in Civil Appeal No.4631/2019; wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that any order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of the execution proceeding, no revision lies before the National Commission and therefore, remedy lies with this Court under the supervisory jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain such an order.

(3.) It has been submitted that the District Consumer Forum and thereafter, the Appellate Consumer Forum had erred in law and jurisdiction in directing the petitioner/non-applicant to issue NOC and duplicate keys of the vehicle in question. It is further submitted that in the original order allowing the Complaint Case No.238/2007 by order dtd. 25/11/2008, the Consumer Forum had directed the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 to deposit Rs.44,062.00 in the loan account of the respondent/applicant and it was directed that on payment of difference of amount by the respondent/applicant, the NOC be issued in favor of the respondent/applicant. It is further submitted that no quantum of difference of amount has been decided by the Consumer Forum therefore, immediately after such order was passed a notice dtd. 28/1/2009 was issued by the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 wherein, the difference of amount to the tune of Rs.1,78,629.00 was demanded from the respondent/applicant in compliance of the order of the District Consumer Forum (Annexure-P/1). In response, it is submitted that no reply to such notice has been given by the respondent/applicant and as such, when the outstanding amount of Rs.1,78,629.00 was not paid, the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 was not obliged to hand over the clearance certificate as directed by the District Consumer Forum. The order of the District Consumer Forum passed in the complaint case was conditional that in case the respondent/applicant deposits the difference of amount then only the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 is obliged to issue the NOC. When such payment was not made, the petitioner//non-applicant no.1 did not issue the NOC. It is further submitted that when such NOC was not issued, the respondent/applicant had filed an execution proceeding before the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum, vide order dtd. 22/2/2012 (Annexure-P/3), has decided that the difference of amount is Rs.1045.00 and as such, it is found that the said amount had already been deposited. The petitioner/non-applicant no.1 was required to hand over the NOC and duplicate keys of the vehicle.