Haryana

Karnal

CC/318/2016

Varish - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sumer Aggarwal

11 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                         Complaint No.318 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 06.10.2016

                                                         Date of decision:11.06.2018

 

Varish son of Shri Yasin resident of VPO Kutail, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. SCO no.193, 2^nd floor Sector-12, Karnal.

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

         

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present  Shri Sumer Aggarwal Advocate for complainant.

                  OP exparte (though Shri P.S.Warich Adv. for OP)

 

ORDER:         

         

                   (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)          

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant availed a loan facility from the OP for purchase of a pre-owned truck bearing registration no.HR45A-2853 for earning livelihood by means of self employment. In this regard, a loan agreement bearing loan account no.XVFPKAL0001381572 was executed between both the parties at Karnal. As per agreement the total loan amount was to be repaid in 40 installments. The complainant paid the 12 installments but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not deposit the installments of few months. In this regard, the complainant also made a request to the OP and complainant also assured to the OP that he will pay the remaining installments as soon as possible. When the complainant/driver of the said vehicle was going to Rohtak on 21.08.2016, some recovery agents of the OP/musslemen hired by OP forcibly and illegally snatched the vehicle from the complainant. These recovery agents also took the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers. The complainant also asked to release the vehicle in question but the OP flatly refused to release it. The complainant is ready to deposit the remaining installments in cash/in the form of demand draft/in the form of cheques. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared but did not file any written statement inspite of availing several opportunities for filing the same. On 24.5.2017 the last opportunity was granted for filing the written statement but none has come present on behalf of OP and OP was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 24.5.2017. It is also mentioned here that on the next date of hearing i.e. 20.7.2017 counsel for OP appeared and moved an application for setting aside the exparte order. The said application was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 13.11.2017 but the counsel for OP join the remaining proceedings.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 12.4.2018.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

5.             From the pleadings and facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant availed a loan facility from OP for purchasing a truck bearing registration no.HR45A-2853. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant paid 12 installments of the loan regularly but due to unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not deposit the installments of few months but he requested the OP he would pay the installments as early as possible. The allegations of the complainant is that on 21.8.2016 when he was going to Rohtak, some recovery agents of OP forcibly and illegally snatched the vehicle from the complainant. Complainant request the OP to release the vehicle but OP flatly refused to release it.

6.             As already stated above, the OP inspite of proceeded against exparte, joined the further proceedings and the learned counsel for OP argued that the complainant has not paid the installment and was defaulter in making the lame excuses and this fact is admitted by the complainant in his complaint. The OP further contended that after getting no response from the complainant Arbitration Proceedings were started against the complainant as envisaged under the loan agreement and the Arbitrator has passed Arbitral award dated 28.02.2017 and the learned counsel for OP produced the copy of the Arbitral Award at the time of arguments. From the copy of arbitral award it is clear that the same is regarding the loan agreement no.XVFPKAL00001381572 dated 28^th March, 2015 and the present complaint of the complainant is also with regard to the same loan agreement.

7.             From the above facts of the case, it is clear that the Arbitrator has passed the award dated 28.02.2017 when the Arbitrator has passed the award, the complaint of the complainant before this Forum is not maintainable. In this regard we can rely upon the authority cited in 2017(2) CLT 529 (NC) titled as Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Manoj Mangal wherein it is held that Arbitration Award passed before the order passed in Consumer complaint and Award had neither been challenged anywhere, nor the same had been set aside by any competent court, the said award had attained finality. The Revision petition allowed by way of dismissing the complaint of the complainant.

In the present case also the arbitration award has been passed by the arbitrator vide order dated 28.02.2017. The complainant has not produced any evidence vide which it can be said that the complainant has filed any appeal against the said Arbitral Award and the Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2017 has been set aside. The authority mentioned above is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the authority, we are of the considered view that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.

8.             In view of the above discussions, we found that the present complaint is not maintainable after the Arbitral Award and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 11.06.2018

                                                                   President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member