AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Viswanath, J
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 106/2011 dated 27.10.2016.
The Petitioner/Complainant was having A/c No. 10226283374 with SBI, Karawal Nagar branch i.e. Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1. The Petitioner took a car loan of Rs.2,60,000/- from HDFC Bank i.e. Respondent No.2, vide Loan A/c No. 13104309. The Petitioner had to repay the loan in 48 installments of Rs.7054/- each. ECS mandate was given so that the instalments of Rs.7054/- per month automatically got deducted and would go to Respondent No.2.Eleven cheques of the Petitioner got bounced and Rs.4400/- was deducted @Rs.400/- per cheque (bounced). Out of eleven cheques, 3 got bounced due to insufficient funds and the rest 8 cheques bounced due to invalid account number, though as per the statement of account of Respondent No.1, there was sufficient balance available. Hence, Complaint was filed praying that the amount of Rs.4400/- (bouncing cheques) be reversed in the Account of the Petitioner. It was further prayed that statement of account be corrected without issuing any abeyance of cheques. Compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs was also sought.
The Complaint was contested by Respondent No.1 that the Complaint was absolutely false, frivolous & vexatious and the same had been filed to put undue pressure upon Respondent No1. It was further submitted that there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 and no deficiency on the part of the Respondent No.1. Therefore, the Complaint was liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. On merits, it was denied that the Petitioner had given correct ECS number to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 was the sponsored Bank and a single standard format approved by RBI was filled in by the user and sent to the sponsored Bank. The sponsored Bank sent floppy to RBI for electronic clearing. The sponsored Bank was responsible to give mandate to RBI & destination Bank. In this case, the sponsored Bank had given mandate number as 283374 which was incorrect. ECS could not be processed for 8 times as no account was found due to incorrect ECS mandate. Out of these ECS, one was returned with remark insufficient fund, two returned inadvertently by mistake and two ECS were returned as mandate was incorrect and Account could not be found. There was no negligence on the part of the answering Respondent and hence, it was prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
None appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2, therefore proceeded ex-parte.
District Forum, vide order 21.01.2011, dismissed the Complaint on the ground that as per guidelines issued by RBI, Department of Payment and Settlement Systems November 2007, "In case of disputes, the decision of the President of the respective Clearing House would be final. In case the dispute could not be settled by the Clearing House, the same may be referred to Department of Payment and Settlement Systems, Central Office, RBI whose decision in the matter would be binding on all concerned."
Being aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 27.10.2016, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner on the ground of dismissal in default, as neither the Petitioner nor his Counsel were present and on previous occasions also sought adjournment on 14.01.2015 and 12.05.2016. It, therefore, appeared that the Petitioner was not serious in pursuing the Appeal.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission on the following grounds:
The impugned order dated 27.10.2016 was arbitrary and against material and facts available on record.
The State Commission failed to consider that the Petitioner and other parties have already filed written argument in the Appeal, and only final judgement was to be pronounced. However, the State Commission was pleased to dismiss the said default for non-prosecution, even in the first call of the cause list.
The impugned order dated 27.10.2016 was based on wrong facts and figures and suffer from material irregularities.
The State Commission failed to appreciate that dismissal of the said Appeal at the final stage would cause acute hardship to the revisionist who was running from pillar to post for the last 5 years seeking justice for the mistake or deficiency in service committed by the Respondents.
Any other ground that may be taken during the course of hearing.
It was submitted that the impugned order was passed on 27.10.2016 and on 07.11.2016, the counsel for the Petitioner applied for certified copy of same and same had been prepared by Registry of the State Commission, Delhi on 28.11.2016 and received by the counsel for Petitioner on 28.11.2016. The present Petition was filed on 20.12.2016 as such was well within the period of limitation.
The Revisionist declared that he had not referred any Petition or other similar remedy in any other court of law against the impugned order dated 27.10.2016.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is proceeded ex-parte. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. I have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
As seen from the ordersheet of the State Commission, the Appellant sought adjournment on 14.01.2015 and 12.05.2016.The Petitioner states that all Parties had filed their written arguments.Neither the Petitioner nor his Counsel was present in the Court at the time of hearing. The Appeal was, therefore, dismissed.Later on reaching the Court, the Petitioner was informed that the Appeal was dismissed in default.
It would be in the interest of justice if the Petitioner is given a chance and heard on merits, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission.The matter is remanded to the State Commission for orders on merits.Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.08.2019.