LALITA BOTHRA Vs. ICICI LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Mr. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant/complainant and going through the impugned order dated 1.9.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No.174 of 2001 and also on going through the record of the complaint case, we find that this appeal lacks merit and the District Forum has rightly relegated the appellant/complainant to her remedy of approaching the Civil Court for redressal of her grievances. The reasons for our order may briefly be stated as under:

(2.) The District Forum has found that the Hire Purchase Agreement, about which, there is a pleading in Para 4 of the complaint, is signed by the appellant/complainant and the same is a blank Hire Purchase Agreement. A perusal of Annexure R-1 will go to show that all the columns, which were to be duly filled by the parties to the Hire Purchase Agreement, have been left bank. Even the amount of security deposit and the amount, which was to be loaned have not been mentioned.

(3.) In nutshell, the appellant/complainant signed on a totally blank Hire Purchase Agreement. Even the schedule of payment of the amount of loan starting from 1st instalment up to 60th instalment as well as the total c/f Rs. grand total and other details have been left blank. Similar is the position regarding the other pages forming part of the Hire Purchase Agreement. The signature of Hirer i. e. , respondent/anagram Finance Limited (now ICICI Limited) and Authorised Signatory or Signature of Owner are also missing.