GURDEEP SINGH R/O. 80/4, IST FLOOR, STATE BANK COLONY DELHI Vs. HDFC BANK LTD. 7TH FLOOR, ANSAL TOWER, NEAR SURYA HOTEL, RAJOURI GARDEN NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 01.12.2010, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission ") in First Appeal No. 2010/455, Gurdeep Singh Vs. M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. , vide which, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janakpuri, dated 06.05.2010 in Consumer Case No. 860/08/19920, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Gurdeep Singh purchased a Chevrolet Tavera Car no. DL1YA8812 for a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs approximately after raising a loan of Rs. 5.5 lakhs from the opposite party (OP), HDFC Bank, which was to be repaid in 48 equal instalments of Rs. 15,583.00 each, starting from 07.05.2007. It has been stated by the complainant that 48 post-dated cheques were issued by him to the opposite party and that he paid 11 instalments upto 07.03.2008. However, he failed to make payments to the Bank from April, 2008, because of the medical treatment of his daughter. It has been stated that on 25.08.2008, the vehicle was forcibly got re-possessed by the opposite party Bank. The complainant went to the office of the opposite party with the instalments, but they refused to accept the same. The complainant gave copies of the papers regarding treatment of his daughter and explained the reasons for non-payment of the instalments, but still, the vehicle was not returned. A legal notice was also sent to the opposite party, but that did not yield any result. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking various reliefs as compensation from the opposite parties. The District Forum, vide their order dated 06.05.2010, directed the opposite party Bank to return the vehicle of the complainant on payment of EMIs due till date. It was also directed that the complainant shall continue to deposit the balance EMIs in future. The operative part of the order of the District Forum reads as under:-

(3.) While passing the above order, the District Forum observed that the opposite party Bank appeared before the District Forum on 27.11.2008 and also on 20.09.2009, but they failed to file their written statement. Their defence was, therefore, stopped and the complainant was asked to file evidence on the next date of hearing. The opposite party Bank was given another opportunity to file evidence, but they again failed to do so. On the date of hearing of the arguments, the learned counsel for both the parties were heard and only after that, the said order was passed by the District Forum. It is interesting to observe that the complainant Gurdeep Singh filed an appeal before the State Commission, challenging the order passed by the District Forum and sought enhancement of the compensation. However, the opposite party HDFC Bank never challenged the same order before the State Commission with the implication that they chose to accept the said order. However, vide impugned order dated 01.12.2010, the State Commission decided to set aside the order passed by the District Forum against the Bank, although they had not filed any appeal against the same. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.