LAWS(NCD)-2018-1-162

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD Vs. KALURAM MEENA

Decided On January 05, 2018
SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD Appellant
V/S
Kaluram Meena Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 21.07.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 100/2014, Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. Kaluram Meena, vide which, the said appeal filed against the order dated 22.01.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udaipur in Consumer Complaint No. 327/2012, allowing the said complaint, was ordered to be dismissed in default.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Kaluram Meena had obtained a finance facility of Rs. 4 lakhs from the opposite party (OP) Finance Company to purchase a vehicle Mahindra Bolero, bearing registration no. RJ27 UA 1605 and the repayment of the same was to be made in 47 instalments of Rs. 10,890/- each. It was alleged that the complainant had repaid 11 instalments, but even then, the vehicle was forcibly snatched away from the complainant by hired persons of the opposite party. The vehicle was returned to the complainant in a damaged condition after a few months and repairs had to be carried out on the same by making payment of Rs. 35,229/-. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking refund of the repair cost of Rs. 35,299/- and to provide compensation for loss in business, as well as for mental harassment/agony etc. The said complaint was decided by the District Forum vide their order dated 22.01.2014, according to which, the OP Finance Company was directed to refund the repair amount of Rs. 35,229/- to the complainant and also directed not to recover any interest/penalty for the loan taken for the period 13.11.2008 to 20.03.2012. A compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment as well as Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost was also awarded. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the Finance Company challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission. The said Commission passed the following interim impugned order on 21.07.2015:-

(3.) It has been stated in the memo of revision petition that the learned counsel for the petitioner was informed on 14.07.2015 that the matter will be taken up for hearing on 21.07.2015. On that day, the learned counsel for the petitioner was held up in arguments before another Court, due to which, he could not reach the Commission in time. However, when he reached the Commission at around 1.00 pm, he was informed that the matter had been dismissed in default for non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the appeal on the same day, but it was dismissed on 21.07.2015 itself by the State Commission, placing reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak vs. Achyut Kashinath, 2011 9 SCC 541, saying that the State Commission had no authority to review the order passed by them. The learned counsel further stated that in view of the position explained, the appeal before the State Commission should be restored and ordered to be decided on merits.