DEEPAK JAYENDRA MEHATA Vs. CHAIRMAN HDFC BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.05.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai ('the State Commission', for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the petitioner only against OP no.3/respondent no.3 and remitted the matter back to the District Forum as against OP no.3 only and dropped the complaint against OPs no.1 and 2/respondent nos.1 and 2. The impugned order reads as under:-

(2.) Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner, who was original complainant before the District Forum, that he had purchased a Tata Indigo car in the month of August, 2005 from M/s Om Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kandivali (W), Mumbai, respondent no.3 herein. While an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- against the total purchase price of the car is alleged to have been paid by the complainant-petitioner to the agent of respondent no.3, he also applied for car loan of Rs.4,51,000/- from the HDFC Bank Ltd. who are respondents no.1 and 2 in this petition and were OPs in the same order before the District Forum. The loan amount sanctioned by the respondent bank to purchase the said car is alleged to have been directly released by the respondent bank to respondent no.3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.3 failed to deliver the possession of the vehicle purchased. It is also alleged by the petitioner that instead of making delivery of the said car to him, the respondent no.3 had given delivery thereof to another person called 'Deepak Devendra Mehta'. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3/OP no.3, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum in which the Chairman of the HDFC Bank was shown as OP no.1 and the Branch Manager of the Bank was made as OP no.2 in addition to the Manager/Director of M/s Om Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd. being included as OP No.3. On notice, OPs appeared before the District Forum. The financial help provided by the HDFC Bank for purchase of the car through a car loan was admitted by the HDFC Bank but the respondent no.3 submitted that they had no dealing with the petitioner and they had dealing with one Mr.Deepak Devendra Mehta to whom the car had been delivered. Vide its impugned order dated 31.07.2010, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the facts of this case showed that this is not a complaint which can be tried by a Consumer Forum in a summary trial under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such held that the complaint is not maintainable before it and that the complainant should have preferred a Forum of conventional Court to thrash out the complicated issues by appropriate legal proceedings. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

(3.) As stated above, vide its impugned order the State Commission remanded the matter to the District Forum for giving an opportunity to the parties for leading evidence and to settle the dispute according to law after hearing the parties. Since the State Commission, while remitting the matter back to the District Forum, dropped the complaint against respondents no.1 and 2 who had been made OPs no.1 and 2 by the complainant before the District Forum, the petitioner has now challenged this order before us.