AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner alleging therein that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 had failed to prove any deficiency in service on their part and the District Forum has also concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners/the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, yet in violation of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum had passed the order whereby it had directed the Petitioners to reschedule the loan amount taken by the Complainant. It is contended that since the order was violation of the provision of the Act, an Appeal being FA No.717 of 2013 was filed against the order of the District Forum dated 14.02.2013 which was dismissed by the State Commission by the impugned order. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
Notice of this Revision Petition was sent to the Respondents. However, despite service of notice, none of them appeared and they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 26.09.2018.
We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 had purchased a tractor from Respondent No.2, M/s Sai Krishna Agencies, the Opposite Party No.1 before the District Forum and for the said purpose, he had taken loan from the Petitioners, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 before the District Forum in the Complaint No.52 of 2011 of the Complainant/Respondent No.1.
Parties led their evidences before the District Forum. After considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the District Forum reached to the following conclusion qua the Petitioners, i.e., Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 before the District Forum:
"The complainant is therefore able to prove deficiency in service partly and unfair trade practice i.e. against Opposite Party no.1 only and there is no reason to go against Opposite Party No.3 who is just a financer and Opposite Party No.2 being the local recovery agent on behalf of Opposite Party No.3."
It is also apparent that despite this observation that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners, following directions were issued by the District Forum which are reproduced as under:
"The Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are directed to reschedule the payment of instalments of loan amount from April 2013 onwards."
The State Commission by the impugned order dismissed the Appeal holding as under:
"after considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that we do not find any irregularity in the impugned order. There are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed."
Under the Act, a complaint can be filed under Section 12 and the procedure to be followed by the District Forum is mentioned in Section 13 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act deals with the findings and the directions then can be issued. The said provision reads as under:
Finding of the District Forum. - (1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely:-
(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question;
(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect;
(c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant;
(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.
Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit;
(e) to remove the defects in goods or deficiencies in the services in question;
(f) to discontinue the unfair trade practice or the restrictive trade practice or not to repeat it;
(g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale;
(h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale;
(ha) to cease manufacture of hazardous goods and to desist from offering services which are hazardous in nature;
(hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently:
Provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less than five per cent. of the value of such defective goods sold or service provided, as the case may be, to such consumers:
Provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed;
(hc) to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement at the cost of the opposite party responsible for issuing such misleading advertisement;
(i) to provide for adequate costs to parties.
(2) Every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together:
Provided that where a member, for any reason, is unable to conduct a proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was last heard by the previous member.
(2A) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding:
Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum.
(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions, the procedure relating to the conduct of the meetings of the District Forum, its sittings and other matters shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government.
It is apparent from the bare reading of the Section that the District Forum has the Jurisdiction to issue directions only against those parties who were found responsible for the deficiency in services. Unless this finding is noted by the District Forum, no directions under Section 14 can be issued. Since in the present case, the District Forum has reached to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners, any directions issued to them is without jurisdiction. Following this, the impugned order by which the order of the District Forum was confirmed is also illegal against the express provisions of the Act. The Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the Petitioners are not liable to reschedule the loan amount.
With these directions, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.