DULICHAND FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED Vs. ABBASUR RAHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party no.1 approached the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Barasat (hereafter the District Forum) with a complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter the Act) arraying the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner as respondents 1 and 2 respectively. On registration, the complaint was assigned DF Case No. 219 of 2003. THE complaint reveals that the opposite party no.1 purchased a tempo 3 wheeler minidoor pick-up van (hereafter the vehicle) from the opposite party no.2, a distributor of vehicles, on obtaining finance from the petitioner; that an agreement was executed by and between the opposite party no.1 and the petitioner stipulating payment of a sum of Rs. 1,36,620/- by the opposite party no.1 in 22 monthly instalments commencing from October 27, 2002; that it had been settled that the petitioner would collect the monthly instalments from the opposite party no.1 through the opposite party no.2; that the opposite party no.1 had been paying monthly instalments through opposite party no.2 who had been issuing receipts in his favour; that the opposite party no.2 lastly received Rs. 30,420/- acknowledging the same on its pad on the assurance that proper receipt would be issued later on which, the opposite party no.1 being an innocent person believed; and that all on a sudden the petitioner took possession of the vehicle on or about March 6, 2003 on the ground of default in payment of instalments. Alleging that the services of the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner suffer from gross negligence and that there is deficiency in service on their part and further that the opposite party no.2 has adopted unfair trade-practice for which the opposite party no.1 had suffered loss of income as well as monthly agony and harassment, the opposite party no.1 in his complaint prayed for direction on the respondents in the complaint to jointly or severally make good loss of Rs.63,000/- suffered by him as well as to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. A further prayer was made for direction on the petitioner to hand over the vehicle to the opposite party no.1.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application on March 5, 2004 before the District Forum. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it is not maintainable on the ground that the ambit and coverage of the Act does not extend to the petitioner and the opposite party no.1, having relationship of creditor and borrower. THE District Forum took up the aforesaid application for consideration. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the available materials, the District Forum recorded a finding that the complainant appears to be a consumer and there is prima facie material to proceed with the case against the opposite parties. THE application was thus rejected by order dated June 22, 2004.

(3.) MR. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.1, contended that having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint, the cause of action for moving the District Forum cannot be segregated. The relief claimed is composite and is directed against both the opposite party no.2 distributor as well as the petitioner, the financer. The State Commission considered all aspects and opined that the questions that were raised by the petitioner are required to be looked into in depth and that refusal of the State Commission to interfere with the order of the District Forum in revision ought not to be tinkered with by this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence.