Orissa

Jajapur

CC/58/2014

SubhaKanta Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pradeepta Kumar Samal

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                      IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.    

                                       C.C.Case No.58 of 2014

 

Subhakanta Panda S/O Rabindra Panda

Vill. Arada, P.O. Rasulpur,P.S.Dharmasala

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                     …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Branch Manager,Tata Motors Finance Ltd,Gurudwara Singh Sabha

    Ground floor,Janapath,Unit-3-Kharvela Nagar,Bhubaneswar.

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

    Dist .Jajpur.

3.Chief Manager,Tata Motors Finance Ltd,Namavati Mahala-18,

    Homi Mody street,Mumbai.                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

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

O R D E R    DT. 31.03.2015

                        Heard the learned counsel for the O.Ps.. Perused the complaint petition bearing C.C.Case No.58/14  and application for non maintainability of the complaint petition U/S 5 & 8 of Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 . 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 TATA ACE (pick up) vehicle bearing Regd.no.0R-04-M-4487 after availing a loan from the O.Ps. under Hire Purchase Agreement. The petitioner was paying the EMIs regularly but suddenly the O.Ps. seized the above vehicle on 18.07.14 without giving any prior notice which amounts to deficiency in service. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps , the petitioner filed this complaint with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on payment of outstanding installment till the date of repossession of the vehicle and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner for the illegal act.

                        On being noticed the O.Ps. have appeared through their advocate and filed a petition regarding  the non-maintainability of the C.C.Case . It is pleaded in the petition that the present consumer complaint is not maintainable in law, as it is has been filed after the Arbitration Award is passed by the learned Arbitrator on 06.06.14 vide Arbitration Case No.178/2014 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act-1996 empowering the O.Ps. to take custody of the vehicle.

That the O.P no.1 accordingly took the custody of the vehicle.

That since Arbitration award has already passed the Hon’ble Forum has no power 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.Gadadhar Banarjee.

                        After service of  copy of 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 an award has been passed against the petitioner on 06.06.14 by the Arbitrator . The petitioner has filed the dispute

on 11.08.14 which is after the award is passed by the Arbitrator . Hence, this Fora lacks jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

                        On the above pleadings arguments we have referred to the judgement  of Hon’ble National Commission reported in installment Supply Ltd Vrs.Kangra Ex Service man Transport Co. & Others 2006(3) CPR-339-NC : 2007(1) CPC-411 and another judgement of Hon’ble State Commission Odisha,Cuttack in Tata Motors Finance Ltd Vrs Niranjan Pal (Revision petition No.97/2012) wherein it was 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 06.06.14 and thereafter the petitioner has filed the consumer complaint on 11.08.14.

                        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 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 EM B E R.                         M EM B E R.                             P R E S I D E N T.