IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Jurisdictional Excess – The NCDRC observed that the District Commission prima facie exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a mandatory direction for payment in an application filed by the consumer for enforcement of a different relief (foreclosure).
(2) Enforcement vs. Adjudication – Proceedings under Section 71 and Section 72 are ministerial and supervisory. They are intended to give effect to already passed orders, not to re-adjudicate or modify substantive rights during the pendency of a complaint.
(3) Liberty to Appellant – The appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. The Commission noted that the District Commission’s order compelling payments while postponing the “foreclosure” issue remained a point of concern that could be addressed in a writ petition.
(4) Remedy for Consumers – Where the Consumer Protection Act provides no further statutory remedy (i.e., no Second Appeal or Revision), the aggrieved party may approach the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, as established in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome.

ORDER

The appellant purchased a Renault Duster vehicle on a loan acquired from the respondent Ess Kay Fincorp Ltd. The complainant alleges that the finance was of Rs.4,00,000/- which amount was inappropriately enhanced by the respondents on their own thereby changing the quantum of the EMIs that were payable. The complainant alleged that he wanted a foreclosure of the loan account as he had negotiated the vehicle to be sold and simultaneously clear all the dues. The complainant alleges that the respondent failed to cooperate and attempted to forcibly repossess the vehicle as a result whereof the appellant - complainant was compelled to file CC/241/2021. The complaint was entertained and the following order was passed on 17.09.2021 by DCDRC, Muktsar Sahib, Punjab:—

“Office report seen. Heard on admission. Complainant appears to be a prima facie consumer, the matter involved appears to be a consumer dispute, the complaint is prima facie within limitation and falls within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. So complaint is admitted. Notice to the OPs be issued for 25.10.2021.

Complaint is also accompanied by an application seeking directions to be opposite parties to provide correct foreclosure to complainant regarding his loan bearing customer number GLBCUST-00000375393 bearing Loan Account having Chasis No. MEEHSRAW5-D7032290, Engine No.E031594 bearing Registration No.PB30N-4015, Model Duster EXL illegally and forcibly against norms of the agreement. Heard on the application. Its notice be also issued for the above said date and the OPs are directed to produce correct foreclosure to complainant regarding his loan bearing customer number GLBCUST0000-375393 bearing Loan Account No. CAMKIPLONS000005419876 alongwith the written reply and they are further restrained from taking forcible possession of vehicle in question bearing Registration No.PB30N-4015 model Duster RXL till the final disposal of present complaint.”

2. According to the appellant-complainant, the respondents were not supplying the correct foreclosure accounts as a result whereof applications were filed including two applications, one under Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the enforcement of the order dated 17.09.2021 and the other application under Section 72 of the 2019 Act for taking action against the respondents for non-compliance of the order dated 17.09.2021. The allegation of the complainant was that instead of clear directions of the District Commission to produce the correct foreclosure account they did not supply the accounts or file any appropriate reply and to the contrary were threatening to repossess the vehicle demanding a huge amount beyond the amount that was due against the loan.

3. The applications were taken up for consideration by the District Forum and the following order was passed on 20.07.2023:-

“Complaint is fixed for consideration on four applications. We have heard the complainant as well as Ld. counsel for OPs to decide the first application as follows:-

First application has been moved by complainant u/s 71 & 72 of the Consumer Protection Act for enforcement of order dated 17.09.2021 passed by this Commission and has sought direction to OPs to comply with said order and for punishing them for dis-obeying the said order is further pleaded that OPs appeared and filed power of attorney but till date, they have not filed any reply. On the other hand, OPs sent legal notice to complainant through counsel Sh. Akhil Modi Advocate Jaipur on 21.12.2021 and Sh. Jitendra Gupta Advocate Jaipur on 23.12.2021, in which, OPs are threating to take possession of vehicle and demanded huge amount, as such, OPs have not complied the order passed by this Commission rather they are doing proceedings against the order of this Commission. In reply to this application, OPs have pleaded that OP has not violated order dated 17.09.2021 passed by this Commission. The perusal of application of complainant nowhere shows that OP viola