DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR

C.D. Case No.1 of 2017

Bideshi Guru, S/o. Dwaru Guru, R/o. Majhipada, Sonepur town, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur

………….. Complainant

Vrs.

1.             The General Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Dare House, 2 N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai, 600 001.

2.             The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., 1^st Floor, Sabat Campus, N.H.6, Ainthapali, Sambalpur – 768 004.

………….. Opp. Parties

Advocate for Complainant                                        ……….  Sri R.Agrawal

Advocate for the O.Ps.                                                 ……….  Sri B.K.Bishi

Present

Sri S.C.Nayak, President

Sri H.Padhan,     Male Member

Date of Judgment  Dt.27.07.2018

J U D G M E N T

By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.

                The succinct facts of the case are as follows  :-

                The complainant a consumer of the O.Ps. has purchased one CHEVROLET TAVERA on being financed by the O.Ps.  The O.Ps. are doing business in the district of Sonepur by appointing agents through their Sambalpur Office.

                The complainant allege that although the O.Ps. have financed Rs.3,30,000/- they have illegally demanded Rs.33,750/- towards service charges. The complainant allege that although the O.Ps. financed Rs.3,30,000/-, they have illegally claimed Rs.4,63,750/- as principal amount and they have illegally claimed interest on the said amount.

                The complainant alleged that although the complainant regularly paid the installment dues, the O.Ps. took possession of the vehicle through hired goondas. They have also sold the vehicle without any intimation to the complainant.

                It is alleged that inspite of payment of all the dues, the O.Ps. have illegally demanded an amount of Rs.2,02,495/- from the complainant.

                Hence, the complainant has filed this case. He has prayed that Rs.3,30,000/- should be treated as the finance amount and sale proceed of the vehicle be refunded to him. He has also claimed compensation and cost of litigation.

                The O.Ps. were noticed in this case. The O.P. No.1 has filed preliminary objection. The advocate for O.P. No.1 filed a memo on dt.6.4.2018 to treat the preliminary objection as version. After hearing on the memo, the same was accepted. The O.P. No.2 has not entered appearance despite notice.

-:   2   :-

            The gist of objection of O.P. No.1 is that the matter was referred to the arbitrator and the arbitrator has passed award in favour of O.Ps. vide award No.963/2015 dt.6.5.2015. O.P. has already filed an execution case vide No.8/2017 before the District Judge, Sonepur which is pending in the said court. Since the award has already been passed, consumer Forum has no power to decide the complaint petition. Copies of award and execution petition has been filed.

            The learned Counsel for O.P. No.1 relied on the following decisions  :-

1.         Installment Supply Ltd. Vrs. Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport Co. & another  reported in 2006(3) C.P.R. 339 (NC).

2.         Case of Tata Finance Ltd. Vrs. Ajaya Kumar Biswal & others reported in (2000) 9 Supreme Court Case 238.

3.         WP(C) MP 2792/2014 in the matter of Bikram Padhan Vrs. Magma Fin. Corp.Ltd. decided by High Court of Odisha Cuttack on 4.3.2014.

            It has also been held by the Hon’ble M.P. State Commission in the case of Shyamlal Patel Vrs. Manager, H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and others 015(4) C.L.T. 422 (M.P.) that once the matter is referred to arbitrator and award is passed by the arbitrator, then the complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable.

            The complainant has not mentioned about the arbitration award and execution arising out of the said award in his complaint petition. So he has not approached the forum with clean hands. Further we find that execution case is pending in the court of District Judge, Sonepur. So there is also danger of conflicting order being passed by two different forum on the self same issue.

            In the wake of aforesaid, this complaint, sans merits, deserves dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dated the 27^th July 2018

                                                                                                                   Typed to my dictation

                                                                        I agree.                              and corrected by me.

                                                                         Sri H.Pradhan,                                 Sri S.C.Nayak

                                                                          Male Member                                      President

                                                                          Dt.27.07.2018                                    Dt.27.07.2018