Mohd. Shaffan v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Revision Petition No. 2408 of 2010

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate
Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav S., Officer
Ms. V. Jyoti, Officer of Bank

Judges

B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
S.M. Kantikar, Member

Acts

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Mohd. Shaffan, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum Bareilly alleging that the respondent, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., repossessed his truck bearing registration no. UP21N 1832 on the ground that he had defaulted on loan instalments. The District Forum, by order dated 29.09.2008, directed the Bank either to return the vehicle or pay ₹4,04,000/- within one month. The respondent bank appealed against this order before the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("State Commission"). The appeal was dismissed on 19.08.2009 by the State Commission in the absence of the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent filed a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of the appeal and recall of the dismissal order. On 03.05.2010, the State Commission set aside its earlier dismissal order, restored the appeal, and fixed it for hearing on merits. The petitioner challenged this restoration order by filing the present revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the State Commission has the legal authority to review and recall its own order dismissing an appeal for non-appearance and restore the appeal to its original number.
Whether the respondent had an alternate remedy available to challenge the dismissal order, such as filing a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The State Commission lacked the power to review and reverse its own order dated 19.08.2009 dismissing the respondent's appeal.
The respondent should have challenged the dismissal order by filing a revision petition before the National Commission instead of seeking restoration before the State Commission.

Respondent's Arguments

The dismissal order dated 19.08.2009 was passed because the State Commission was misled by the petitioner regarding proper service of hearing notice.
The impugned order restoring the appeal was rightly passed and should be upheld.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. [2011 (9) SCC 541]	Section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, limits the power to review orders to the National Commission; State Commissions and District Forums do not have review powers.	The court relied on this precedent to hold that the State Commission had no authority to review and set aside its own order dismissing the appeal, rendering the impugned order invalid.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the procedural history and the submissions of both parties. It noted that the appeal filed by the respondent against the District Forum’s order was dismissed by the State Commission due to the respondent’s absence. The respondent claimed it was misled by the petitioner concerning the hearing notice. The court then considered whether the State Commission had the power to review and recall its own dismissal order. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr., the court emphasized that under section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act, only the National Commission has the power to review its own orders, and such powers are not vested in the State Commission. Consequently, the State Commission’s impugned order restoring the appeal was held to be without legal authority. The court concluded that the respondent should have pursued a revision petition before the National Commission to challenge the dismissal order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside. However, the court granted liberty to the respondent to file such a revision petition within 90 days from the date of this order.

Holding and Implications

The court SET ASIDE the impugned order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the State Commission restoring the respondent’s appeal. The direct effect is that the restoration of the appeal by the State Commission is invalidated, and the respondent must seek remedy by filing a revision petition before the National Commission if aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 19.08.2009.

No new precedent was established; the court reaffirmed the existing legal principle limiting review powers to the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There was no order as to costs.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Mohd. Shaffan v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2408 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 03/05/2010 in Appeal No. 80/2009 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)

1. MOHD. SHAFFAN

R/o.39,Ricbandhan,Police Station-Quila, Bareilly

Uttar Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus

1. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. & ANR. C/o. 116,Ratan Deep Complex, Chowkai Churaha P/s. Kotwali Bareilly

Uttar Pradesh

2. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED

R/o. at D-10, 1 & 2, Local Shopping Centre, Vasant Vihar New Delhi

Delhi ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner :

For the Respondent :

Dated : 12 Feb 2018

ORDER

APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

For the Petitioner

Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate For the Respondents

Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate Mr. Abhinav S., Officer Ms. V. Jyoti, Officer of Bank

PRONOUNCED ON : 12^th FEBRUARY

2018

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.05.2010, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Miscellaneous Application No. 80/09 in Appeal No. 266/2009 before that Commission. The said appeal filed by the respondents/opposite parties (OPs) against the order dated 29.09.2008, passed by the District Forum Bareilly in consumer complaint No. 225/2007, filed by the present petitioner was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2009 of the State Commission, but vide impugned order dated 03.05.2010 in Misc. Application No. 80/09, the State Commission decided to recall their order dated 19.08.2009.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum Bareilly, saying that the respondent/OP Kotak Mahindra Bank, repossessed the truck, bearing registration no. UP21N 1832, belonging to the complainant on the plea that the complainant had failed to pay the instalments of loans taken by the complainant from the respondent/OP Bank. The said complaint was decided by the District Form vide order dated 29.09.2008, vide which, they directed the OP Bank to return the said vehicle to the complainant, or in the alternative, to pay him a sum of ₹4,04,000/- within one month of the order. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the respondent/OP financer challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. Vide order dated 19.08.2009 of the State Commission, the said appeal was decided in the absence of the respondent/OP/appellant and it was ordered to be dismissed. The respondent/OP filed a miscellaneous application no. 80/2009, seeking restoration of the appeal after recall of order

dated 19.08.2009. Vide impugned order dated 03.05.2010, the State Commission decided to set aside their own order dated 19.08.2009 and restored the appeal of the respondent/OP to its original number. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant, pleading that the State Commission had no authority in law to review their own order and restore the appeal.

3. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the State Commission had no powers to reverse their own order dated 19.08.2009. It was open to the respondent/OP to have challenged the order dated 19.08.2009, by way of a revision petition etc. before this Commission.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent/OP stated that the order dated 19.08.2009 had been passed by the State Commission, having been misled by the action of the petitioner/complainant. The impugned order had, therefore, been rightly passed by the State Commission, and the same should be upheld.

5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

6. It is made out from the material available on record that appeal No. 266/2009 filed by the respondent/OP against the order dated 29.09.2008, passed by the District Forum Bareilly, was dismissed vide order passed by the State Commission on 19.08.2009 in the absence of the respondent/appellant. The respondent/appellant have taken the plea that the petitioner/complainant had misled the State Commission by saying that they had duly informed the respondent/appellant about the hearing of the case on 19.08.2009. Be that as it may, it is to be seen whether the State Commission was empowered in law to review their own order 19.08.2009 and set aside the same and fix the appeal for hearing on merits. The issue has been discussed in an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr." [2011 (9) SCC 541]" and it was held that under section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the State Commission or District Forum were not vested with the powers to review their own orders. The powers to review were vested only in the National Commission as laid down in section 22A of the Act. In the light of these facts, we have no reason to differ with the plea taken by the petitioner that the impugned order does not withstand the scrutiny of law and the State Commission did not have any right to pass such an order. It was open for the respondent/OP to file a revision petition before this Commission, if they were aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2009. Under the circumstances, we have no alternative, but to set aside the impugned order of the State Commission and we order accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate

to grant liberty to the respondent/OP to challenge the order dated 19.08.2009 by way of revision petition, if any, before this Commission within a period of 90 days of passing of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

......................

DR. B.C. GUPTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

DR. S.M. KANTIKAR

MEMBER

Mohd. Shaffan v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Mohd. Shaffan v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Comments