AJAY KUMAR PAUL Vs. SUBRAT CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 27/9/2019 in First Appeal No. A/673 of 2018 and M.A. No. 219 of 2019 dtd. 1/11/2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (in short, the 'State Commission') dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, Baruipur, Kolkata (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 90 of 2016.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that it had entered into a Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement on 31/5/2012 with the respondent/complainant for Rs.3,00,000.00 for the purchase of a Maruti Wagon R LXI CNG car. Under the agreement the respondent/complainant was to pay Rs.3,90,000.00 inclusive of interest and charges @ 7.50% per year in 48 equal monthly instalments. The petitioner states that after paying some instalments in time, the respondent/complainant defaulted in payments or paid instalments on any date of the month despite notice. A final reminder notice was issued on 3/8/2016 for final payment of Rs.41,479.00 within 5 days although the agreement stood terminated due to default. Since the amount was not paid, petitioner filed Misc. Case No 2950 of 2016 under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 before the 2nd Bench, City Court, Calcutta which appointed a Receiver vide order dtd. 10/8/2016 to take possession of the vehicle. On 28/8/2016 the petitioners took possession of the vehicle. The petitioner also filed a claim bearing SGRCV No. 76W of 2016 before the Sole Arbitrator, Chennai seeking recovery of Rs.63,018.00 and by order dtd. 16/12/2016 the claim was allowed. The respondent/complainant filed CC No. 90 of 2016 before the District Forum which came to be decided, on contest, on 8/5/2018. The District Forum directed refund of instalments paid along with Rs.50,000.00 for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000.00 as costs within one month failing which interest @ 9% till realization. Petitioners moved the State Commission which, by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant/bank submitted that the vehicle had been returned to the respondent/complainant whereas the BNA submitted stated that the vehicle had been sold in order to realize the sum due and payable, although the order noted that there was no record to that effect. The State Commission concluded that vehicle was sold beyond the knowledge of the respondent/complainant without making the receiver a party which was an intentional deficiency on part of the appellant/bank. The instant revision petitoin impugns this order.

(3.) Respondents were served; however, respondent 1 failed to appear. Vide order dtd. 19/1/2023 a final opportunity was provided to them to appear and argue their case. As they failed to do so on 9/5/2023, they were placed ex parte, and the matter heard finally. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful consideration to the material on record.