LALITA BOTHRA vs ICICI LIMITED

AFTER hearing Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant/complainant and going through the impugned order dated 1.9.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 174 of 2001 and also on going through the record of the complaint case, we find that this appeal lacks merit and the District Forum has rightly relegated the appellant/complainant to her remedy of approaching the Civil Court for redressal of her grievances. The reasons for our order may briefly be stated as under:

THE District Forum has found that the Hire Purchase Agreement, about which, there is a pleading in Para 4 of the complaint, is signed by the appellant/complainant and the same is a blank Hire Purchase Agreement. A perusal of Annexure R-1 will go to show that all the columns, which were to be duly filled by the parties to the Hire Purchase Agreement, have been left bank. Even the amount of security deposit and the amount, which was to be loaned have not been mentioned. In nutshell, the appellant/complainant signed on a totally blank Hire Purchase Agreement. Even the schedule of payment of the amount of loan starting from 1st instalment up to 60th instalment as well as the total c/f Rs. grand total and other details have been left blank. Similar is the position regarding the other pages forming part of the Hire Purchase Agreement. The signature of Hirer i.e., respondent/Anagram Finance Limited (now ICICI Limited) and Authorised Signatory or Signature of Owner are also missing.

In the first place, Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate tried to submit that the appellant was not placing reliance on the Hire Purchase Agreement and there was no reference about it in the complaint case but when he was referred to Para 4 of the complaint, which reads as under: "4. That in Oct. 1995, the complainant approached to the O.P. The O.P. agreed to extend the finance to the complainant under the terms of Hire Purchase Finance Agreement. Parties entered into the Hire Purchase Finance Agreement. Despite requests the copy of the said agreement was not supplied to the complainant."

He had to agree that the complainant herself pleaded in Para 4 of the complaint about the terms of the Hire Purchase Finance Agreement and about the parties entering in the Hire Purchase Finance Agreement. Not only this, the complainant put forth a grievance that despite requests, the copy of the said agreement was not supplied to her. Obviously, the complaint is to be adjudicated on the basis of the rights and liabilities flowing from the Hire Purchase Agreement and document (Annexure R-1), which has been left blank and no column of the same has been filed

THE District Forum has after carefully going through the Hire Purchase Agreement has rightly held that it was a fit case, which ought to be heard and disposed of by a competent Civil Court. We are also of the considered opinion that the evidence, which is required to be recorded regarding the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement cannot be received in evidence in the summary jurisdiction given to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. Likewise, the evidence regarding the circumstances under which the various columns in the Hire Purchase Agreement have been left blank and the evidence regarding the circumstances under which the said Hire Purchase Agreement was not signed by the authorised signatory of ICICI Limited, cannot be appropriately recorded in the summary jurisdiction. Moreover, the averments of fraud and the evidence for proving the same can only be recorded before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Faced with such a situation, Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate contended before us that the appellant would avail of the remedy of approaching the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. THEre shall be no orders regarding the costs as none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.