Ghasiyaram Jain vs Dena Bank

This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Actâ€), by the Complainant, is directed against

the order dated 31.12.2013, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Pandari, Raipur (for short “the State

Commissionâ€) in First Appeal No.13/692. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 09.12.2013, passed by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanker (for short “the District Forumâ€) in Case No.18 of 2004 and has thus dismissed the Appeal

preferred by the Petitioner herein.

In the first instance, in the second round, pursuant to the order passed by the State Commission on 24.12.2009, setting aside the earlier order passed

by the District Forum on 13.07.2017, and remanding the case back to the District Forum with a direction to it to consider the Application filed by the

Petitioner herein under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter-alia, seeking amendment in the Complaint for impleadment of the

Manufacturer and the Dealer of the photocopying machine purchased by the Petitioner, the District Forum vide order dated 19.08.2011, dismissed the

said Application. Aggrieved, the Petitioner again filed an Appeal to the State Commission. The said Appeal was disposed of by the State Commission

vide its order dated 04.07.2012, with the following directions:

“In view of this, the appeal being barred by limitation is liable to be dismissed; the same is so dismissed. However, on the request of counsel for the

appellant, it is directed that if fresh application of amendment under order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, is moved before the District Forum, then it may be

considered by the District Forum on its merits. No order as to the cost of this appeal.â€​

In furtherance of the said liberty having been granted to the Petitioner, he filed a fresh Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure now seeking to implead the Insurance Company which has insured the machine in question, in addition to the impleadment of the Dealer as

well as the Manufacturer, as prayed for in the earlier Application, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2011. However, the said

Application again did not find favour with the District Forum and was thus, dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2013. Again being dissatisfied, the

Petitioner preferred yet another Appeal before the State Commission (FA/13/168), in which the State Commission passed the following order:

“We find that the aforesaid application was not required to be allowed in view of the fact that against newly proposed parties, the complaint would

have been time barred and such allegations could not have been made against them after so many years. In the impugned order also, it has been

referred that it was the objection of the O.P. that after 8 years now the complainant is trying to implead those parties in the complaint case, which is

not permissible.

Thus, we find that though learned District Forum has not used appropriate words in the impugned order and has unnecessarily stated that moving of

this second application for amendment by the appellant is abuse of process of law etc., such terms should not have been used by the District Forum in

view of the fact that liberty was granted to the appellant by this Commission itself in Appeal No.FA/12/13 vide order dated 04.07.2012 for moving

second application for amendment and then that the application was moved before the District Forum. Thus, filing such second application for

amendment was not abuse of process of any law.

But nevertheless on merits, we find that application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was not maintainable and it has rightly been not

allowed by the District Forum. The appeal has got no substance and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.â€​

Still aggrieved, the Petitioner brought the matter before this Commission in Revision Petition No.2954 of 2013. Vide order dated 18.09.2013, the

Revision Petition was dismissed, with the result that the issue relating to the amendment of the Complaint attained finality, as the said order was not

challenged in the Supreme Court.

In the afore-stated factual background, the sole issue surviving for consideration in this Revision Petition is whether there was any deficiency in

service on the part of the Respondent Bank in approaching the Tehsildar, under the Chhattisgarh Revenue Act, 1959, for recovery of its dues from the

Petitioner who, ultimately took possession of the machine in question and delivered the same to the Bank. Though, the stand of learned Counsel

appearing for the Petitioner is that as per his instructions, the said machine has already been sold by the Bank without any intimation to the Petitioner,

but learned Counsel appearing for the Bank has no instructions on the said aspect of the matter.

Be that as it may, in so far as the question of Bank’s initiating recovery proceedings under the afore-noted statute, is concerned, learned

Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has not been able to convince me that there was any legal infirmity in Bank’s resorting to the said

proceedings and the Tehsildar re-possessing the same. However, in so far as the question of disposal of the machine in question is concerned, learned

Counsel for the Bank has not been able to state as to whether the machine has been disposed of or not and if the same has in fact been sold, the

requisite procedure was been followed.

Under the circumstances, I dispose of the Revision Petition with a direction to the Bank to furnish all the necessary documents to the Petitioner to

show that all the requisite procedural formalities before initiating the recovery proceedings against him and for selling the machine under the afore-said

Act had been followed, if in fact the machine has been sold. It may be noted that according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, the

demand note issued by the Tehsildar was served on the Petitioner in accordance with the statutory provisions. The requisite information shall be

furnished to the Petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the Petitioner is not satisfied with the procedure

followed at both the afore-noted stages, it will be open to him to take recourse to appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance.

The costs imposed by the District Forum on the Petitioner, while dismissing the Complaint vide order dated 09.12.2013, are hereby deleted.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Before parting with the case, I deem it appropriate to observe that since the matter is hanging fire for over a decade, the Bank would be better

advised to try to settle the matter of recovery of its dues from the Petitioner, who was unable to use the machine for the purpose it was purchased

under an employment scheme of the Government, uninfluenced by the afore-said order in this Revision Petition.