Haryana

StateCommission

A/442/2016

JOGENDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.U.FINANCIERS INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KANT

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.442 of 2016

Date of Institution: 19.05.2016

                                                          Date of Decision: 16.08.2016

 

1. Jogender Pal S/o Shri Subh Ram, R/o village Mahrampur, Tehsil Narnaul through General Power of Attorney Sube Singh S/o Sh.Kurda Ram, R/o Village Mehrampur, Tehsil Narnaul.
2. Sube singh S/o Shri Kurda Ram, R/o Village Mehrampur,tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1.      A.U. Financers (India) Limited through Managing Manager, 19A dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer road, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2.      Manager, Branch Office A.U. Financers (India) Limited, Branch Office Singhana Road, Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh (Haryana)

         …..Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.R.S. Badhran, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged that truck bearing registration No.HR-66-9066 was got financed by complainant No.1-appellant firm the O.ps. vide account No. A.U-43500. That amount was to be repaid with monthly installment of Rs.52,800/- each and he was depositing the same continuously up to the month of October 2014.  Complainant No.2 was his general attorney.  In the month of May 2014 when complainant No.2 went to deposit installment O.Ps. refused to accept the same and asked to repay the entire amount in lumpsum.  On 22.06.2014 O.ps. took possession of truck carrying cotton seeds weighing 20 tons through their musclemen.  This act was altogether contrary to the agreement. A legal notice dated 04.07.2014 was sent to release the truck alongwith documents and the goods, but, to no avail.  The O.Ps. be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.Five lacs alongwith interest from the date of taking possession of the truck and return the vehicle as well as goods.

2.      O.ps. filed reply controverting his averments and raised objection about territorial jurisdiction, status of complainant No.2 as consumer.  It was also alleged that as per agreement the matter was liable to be referred to the arbitrator.  As per agreement executed in between them they were entitled to take possession of the vehicle in case of default of payment of any instalment.  The borrower was asked to deposit the instalments time and again, but, he did not adhere to financial discipline.  He was liable to pay Rs.1,75,411/-. Due notice was sent to complainant on 25.06.2014.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) decided the complaint vide impugned order dated 17.02.2016  and asked the parties to approach the civil court for adjudication  upon this dispute because Complicated question of law and fact is involved.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainants have preferred this appeal on the ground that no complicated question of law is involved and the District forum should have decided the complaint on merits.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that no complicated question is involved in the present case. District Forum is only to opine whether the O.Ps. acted in accordance with provisions of law or not.  It is further argued that even if there is arbitration clause, the parties cannot be asked to approach civil court because as per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986 (In short “Act”) Consumer Fora can adjudicate upon the matter. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No.7975 of 2001 titled as Dr. J.J.Merchant and others Vs.Shrinath Chaturvedi  decided on 12.08.2002 and CCI Chambers co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. 2003 (3) CLT 221.  Opinion of Tamil Nadu State Commission, Chennai in Ravinderanath Raghunath Vs.DLF Southern Homes Private Limited, 2016 (1) CLT 210.  

7.      However there is no dispute as far as the opinion expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Tamil Nadu State Commission in the aforesaid case laws is concerned. There is no doubt that as per Section-3 of the Act Consumer Fora can adjudicate upon the dispute, even if there is an agreement to refer the matter to the arbitrator because section 3 of the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, but , this section will not empower consumer fora to adjudicate upon any dispute when the matter has already been decided by arbitrator.  It is specifically mentioned in impugned order dated 17.02.2016 that vide award dated 28.01.2015 the matter has already been decided by the arbitrator. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellants produced the copy of order dated 28.01.2015 passed by arbitrator vide which dispute in between the parties has already been settled. When the matter has already been decided by an arbitrator consumer fora cannot adjudicate upon the dispute. Award passed by an arbitrator is like a civil decree. Our Hon’ble National Commission has clearly laid down in Megma Fin. Corp Vs. Gulgar Ali  II (2016) CPJ 231 (NC) that in such like matters consumer fora should refrain itself from passing an order. When parties have opted to proceed before arbitrator and jurisdiction of consumer Fora stands barred.  It has no power to set aside award or decree passed by Civil Court.  It is also opined therein that fora below wrongly arrogated to themselves power which they did not possess.  After the opinion of onH

Hon’ble National Commission nothing is left to be discussed.  Consumer Fora cannot sit in appeal against the order already passed by arbitrator, so learned District Forum rightly refused to adjudicate upon this dispute. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

August 16th, 2016   Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi                                                  Member                                               Judicial Member                                           Addl. Bench                                      Addl.Bench              

S.K.