Back
A. P. SAHI, BHARATKUMAR PANDYA
Rajbir Singh Brar – Appellant
Versus
Ess Kay Fincorp Ltd. – Respondent
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 prov
(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 ....
The court ruled that execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act must follow statutory appeal routes, and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is not applicable.
Point of law : Justice delayed is Justice denied” which is not a cosmetic statement. All the stake holders have a role to play in ensuring that justice is not delayed. There are several factors that ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act and the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of....
The State Consumer Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering re-conveyance, conflicting with ongoing civil litigation and statutory limitations on review powers.
Appeal Execution – The impugned Order against which the present Appeal Execution has been filed cannot be termed to be an Order passed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 at all.
Point of Law : President or the senior most member is entitled to conduct proceedings of the National Commission in accordance with the statutory prescription.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
