District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh

CC/134/2020

BEFORE:

            RATTAN SINGH THAKUR, PRESIDENT

            SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

            SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

PRESENT:

Sh. Yugansh Siwach, Counsel for complainants

Dated : 19^th March, 2020   

ORDER

1.         Heard.
2.         Claim of the complainants is, in the year 2014, complainant No.1 had taken auto loan (No.AUR0041041187843) and complainant No.2 stood co-borrower for the said loan.  Agreement was executed between the parties.  Complainants had made full payment of the loan on 15.10.2018 whereafter loan account was closed and No Due Certificate was accordingly issued.  The deposit slip also annexed with the consumer complaint. Accordingly, the entry of hypothecation removed from the RC of the vehicle for which the loan was raised.  OPs had also filed execution petition before the learned ADJ, Chandigarh for execution of the award which was later on withdrawn.  Now the complainants had received a notice dated 17.7.2019 on 30.7.2019 qua dishonouring of the cheque bearing No.018102 dated 6.7.2019 of Rs.1,77,000/- of complainant No.2 which was taken as security of the loan and rather being misused.  Hence, prayed unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and award of the amount.
3.         It is the own admitted case in the averments made in the consumer complaint as well copy of Annexure C-4 and C-7 the award was passed against the complainants on 31.8.2018 which was being executed by learned ADJ, Chandigarh.  To this effect, copies of execution petitions were also annexed.  Later on the execution was withdrawn. The finding on merit has not come, the awarded amount, which was passed by the arbitrator, stood paid by the complainants to the OP bank.  The said award had also not been set aside.  While sitting as District Forum, we are not vested with the powers to entertain an appeal against the genuineness of the award. The remedy lies with the learned District Court to challenge the said award or get a finding recorded the award having been satisfied.  There is no such finding recorded by learned Additional District Judge.  Rather the execution petition was dismissed as withdrawn.  This simply means the award is still in force. 
4.         Per allegations made in the consumer complaint, now the OPs had issued notice qua the dishonouring of the cheque allegedly issued by complainant No.2 meaning thereby the complainants are being sought to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainants will have an opportunity to defend the said criminal complaint, if filed, and prove their case, cheques issued were not in the discharge of the liability, but, as security and the liability stood discharged.  In case we entertain this consumer complaint simply on No Due Certificate of the OPs, it will have impact on the prosecution likely to be instituted by the OPs against the complainants before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate under the Negotiable Instruments Act and further it will have impact on the award passed by the learned Arbitrator which was being executed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.  We cannot bypass this judicial process by entertaining the present consumer complaint.  The remedy of the complainants lies somewhere else with regard to the issuance of the cheque, its dishonouring and to get the award passed by the learned arbitrator set aside. 
5.         From the above material on record, we find it is not an admitable consumer complaint and proceed to dismiss the same, at preliminary stage. Ordered accordingly. 
6.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the complainants free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

19/03/2020

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

[Surjeet Kaur]

[Rattan Singh Thakur]

Member

Member

President