Tribunals and Commissions(2017) 02 NCDRC CK 0096

M/S. SHRIRAM CHITS (MAHARASHTRA) LTD. vs PRABHAKAR RANGNATH SABALE

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 22 February 2017 · Citation: 2017 1 CPR 697

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Shreesha
CASE NUMBER
1728 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 350 words
1.

Heard both the Counsels.

2.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there are two Opposite Parties, namely, Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Branch Latur and Shriram Chits Fund (Maharashtra) Limited and that the Complainant had arrayed Shriram Chits Fund (Maharashtra) Limited, i.e., the Petitioner herein, together with Shriram City Union Finance Limited. The notice in the Complaint had not been issued to the Petitioner and the notice before the District Forum was issued only to Shriram City Union Finance Limited which is a separate legal entity.

3.

It is submitted by the Counsel that Shriram Chits Fund (Maharashtra) Limited, the Petitioner herein, had preferred First Appeal No.530 of 2015 and Shriram City Union Finance Limited had preferred First Appeal No.531 of 2015 before the State Commission and that both these Appeals were dismissed. It has been observed by the State Commission that Advocate R. P. Mote appeared for both the Appellants and that the Petitioner herein did not appear or file its Written Version before the District Forum. It is observed from the record that before the District Forum both the parties were arrayed together as one Opposite Party. Therefore, in the absence of any specific notice issued to the Petitioner herein, there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel that Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Limited was not given an opportunity to file their Written Version and submit their case on merits before the District Forum.

4.

For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Revision Petition is allowed and the Complaint is restored to the Board of the District Forum to decide it afresh on merits in accordance with law.

5.

All the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 31.03.2017 for further proceedings.

6.

However, having regard to the fact that the Complaint pertains to the year 2014, the District Forum is requested to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months of the date fixed.

7.

The amounts, which have been deposited before the District Forum, shall stand deposited till the disposal of the Complaint.