Orissa

Jajapur

CC/95/2014

Abiram Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Tata Motors Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeeptaumar Samal

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

                           IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar,President,

                                                                         2. Shri Pitabas Mohanty,Member,

                                                                         3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                       C.C.Case No.95 of 2014

Abhiram Mishra  S/O Gayadhar Mishra

Vill/P.O. Mansada ,P.S. Binjharpur

Dist .Jajpur.  At present At.Khapuria,Panitanki,

P.S.Madhupatana,  Dist.Cuttack.

                                                                                                                 …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus).

1.Branch Manager, Tata Motors, Finance Ltd, Gurudwarsingh Sabha, Ground

  Floor,Janapath,Unit-3,Kharvel Nagar ,Bhubaneswar,Dist.Khurda.

2.Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance ltd,At/P.O/P.S. Jajpur Road,Dist.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                     …………………..Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:        Sri P.K. Samal, P. Mallick, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties .        Sri M.K. Panda, S.Dehury,K.K.Sahu ,A.K.Jena,R.K.Panda.Advocates.                                          

 ORDER DT. 24.07.2015 .

                        Heard the learned counsel for the O.Ps. Perused the complaint petition bearing C.C.Case No.95/14 and application for non maintainability of the complaint petition U/S 5 & 8 of Arbitration and conciliation Act-1996 by the O.Ps. The petitioner has filed the dispute against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service.

                        Brief facts of the petitioner’s case are that the petitioner purchased a Truck bearing Regd. No.0R-09-F-7066 after availing a loan from the O.Ps. under Hire purchase Agreement to maintain his livelihood by the means of self employment. The petitioner was paying the EMIs regularly but due to break down of the vehicle and financial crisis the current over dues is pending amounting to Rs.3,51,551,72p/- .That in the mean time on dt.15.12.14 the O.Ps. thretended to repossess the vehicle forcibly from the petitioner at any moment without any prior notice which amounts to deficiency in service . Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. the petitioner has filed this complaint with the prayer to direct the O.ps not to repossess the vehicle without any illegal means during pendency of this dispute till disposal of the present dispute.

                        On being noticed the O.Ps. have appeared through their learned counsel and filed a petition regarding the non maintainability of the C.C.Case. It is pleaded  by  the petitioner that the present consumer complaint is not maintainable in law, as it is  filed after the Arbitration Award is passed by the learned Arbitration on 12.06.2012 vide Arbitration case No.LOT 4/MAR631 of 2012 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 empowering the O.Ps. to take custody of the vehicle.

                        Accordingly the O.Ps.are empowered to take the custody of the vehicle which is  in question. That since Arbitration award has already passed the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta bearing C.O.No.223 of 2009 –Industrial Bank Ltd Vrs.Godadhar Banarjee.

                        After service of copy of the petition filed by the O.Ps to the petitioner. The petitioner did not choose to file any objection.

                        The learned counsel for the O.Ps. argued that  arbitration award has been passed against the petitioner on 12.06.12 by the learned Arbitrator .The petitioner has filed the dispute on 31.12.2014 which is after the award is passed by the Arbitrator. Hence this Fora lacks jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

                        On the above pleadings and arguments we have referred the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in Installment  supply Ltd,Vrs, Kangara  Ex-service man Transport Co & others 2006(3)CPR-339-N.C: 2007(1) CPR-411 and another judgement of Hon’ble State Commission Odisha in Tata Motors Finance Ltd Vrs. Niranjan Pal (Revision petition No.97/2012 wherein it is held that:

“ A complaint can not be decided by the Consumer Fora  after an Arbitration Award is already passed “.

In the instant case it is revealed from the record  and copy of the Arbitration Award that award was passed on 12.06.2012 and thereafter the petitioner has filed the Consumer complaint on 31.12.2014.

                        Basing on the pleadings and documents available on record and circumstances of the case and decision cited above we are of the opinion that when the dispute having been decided and award was made by Sole Arbitrator, the subsequent C.C. Case filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

                        In the net result the non maintainability petition filed by the O.Ps. is allowed . Hence the C.C. Case is dismissed, since the Fora lacks no jurisdiction to decide the same.

 

 

L A D Y M E M B E R.                                    M E M B E R.                                P R E S I D E N T.