No Authority For Consumer Fora To Extend Filing Deadline Beyond 45 Days: NCDRC Holds Equitas Finance Liable For Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that a consumer Fora at any level had no authority to extend the deadline for submitting a written version beyond 45 days. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant took a four-wheeler loan from Equitas Finance/finance company to purchase a Tempo Traveler for self-employment. The company...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that a consumer Fora at any level had no authority to extend the deadline for submitting a written version beyond 45 days.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant took a four-wheeler loan from Equitas Finance/finance company to purchase a Tempo Traveler for self-employment. The company financed Rs. 2,70,000 with a 36-month tenure and an EMI of Rs. 10,910 for 35 months, with the final EMI being Rs. 9,217. The complainant signed an unfilled agreement and wasn't given a copy. The company took the vehicle's original R.C. Book. The complainant made payments in cash and cheques but faced financial difficulties and missed some EMIs. Despite this, the company threatened to seize the vehicle. Despite financial hardship, the complainant paid the installments and late fees. The company claimed Rs. 22,000 in late fees was still owed, refusing to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The complainant sent another request, but the company claimed Rs. 24,804 was due, still not providing an account statement. Despite their promise to send annual statements, the company never did, prompting the complainant to file a complaint with the District Forum, alleging unfair trade practices. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the finance company to the finance company to provide the complainant with the original vehicle R.C. and NOC. The finance company was also to pay the complainant Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony and hardship and Rs. 10,000 for litigation costs. After this, the company appealed to the State Commission of Tamil Nadu, which allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the State Commission's order, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The proceeding was set ex parte since the company did not appear before the National Commission
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that a perusal of the State Commission's order showed it had not considered the appeal filed by the finance company on merits. If the finance company was absent despite notice and proceeded ex-parte, they could not file a written version beyond the statutory limit of 45 days (30+15). The Commission highlighted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5SCC 757, Consumer Fora at any level had no discretion to extend the period for filing a written version beyond 45 days. Hence, the State Commission erred in setting aside the District Forum's well-reasoned order, leading to its order being set aside and its order being restored. The finance company was to implement the District Forum's order within 30 days.
The National Commission disposed of the revision petition accordingly.
Case Title: G.S. Pal Pandian Vs. Equitas Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: R.P. No. 277/2011