Orissa

Jajapur

CC/66/2014

Mirza Mobin Baig - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

B.N.Panda

25 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                      IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                     Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President.

                                                                                     2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                     3. Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member. 

Dated the 25 th day of March,2015.

C.C.Case No.66 of 2014

Mirza Mobin Baig,

S/O. Mirza samir Baig

Vill. –Solapada P.O. Goleipur   

P.S.-Korei.Dist. Jajpur.                                    ……………..Complainant .                                                                                              

                        (Versus)

1.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance company ltd,No.2,N.S.C Bose

   Road, Chennai.

2.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd, Dev kunj main Road

    P.O. Jajpur Road, Dist. Jajpur

                                                                                                                 …………………………Opp.Party.                      

For the Complainant:                  Sri  B.N. Panda , Advocate.

For the Opp.Party     :                Sri  P.K. Ray, Sri A. R.Sethy, Advocates

                                                                               Date of order:  25.03. 2015

SHRI  BIRAJA PRASAD KAR, PRESIDENT.

                        Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant purchased a TATA LPT 2516 vehicle bearing Regd. No.0R-04L-8014 after availing a loan from the O.Ps. under Hire Purchase Agreement. The complainant was paying the EMIs regularly but due to sudden closure of the coal mine operation the petitioner could not pay some EMIs for which the O.Ps. seized the above vehicle on 31.08.2013 without giving any prior notice which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant filed this complaint with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to release the vehicle immediately in favour of the complainant and to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the illegal act.

                        On being noticed the O.Ps. have appeared through their advocate and filed their written version refuting the allegations made in the complaint petition. It is pleaded in the written version 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 04.07.14 vide Arbitration Case No.968/2014 , in view of the Law Laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Installment Supply Ltd Vrs. Kanggra Ex-Serviceman Transport C.O & another reported in 2007(1)CPC-411 .

                        It is also pleaded that the complainant availed a loan from the O.Ps. under Hire Purchase Agreement. Admittedly the complainant is a defaulter in payment of installments for which the vehicle was repossessed in terms of the agreement after due notice to the complainant vide notice dt.02.07.12. After repossession of the vehicle the O.Ps. again issued a pre-sale notice dt.04.09.14 to the complainant by giving an opportunity to clear his liabilities in order to get the vehicle released. But the complainant failed to act in terms of the said  notice for which the vehicle was put to auction and the sale proceed was adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.8,21,903/- even after adjustment of the sale proceed of the vehicle. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed.

                        On the date of hearing we have heard arguments from the learned advocates for both the sides. Perused the record and documents available on record.     

                        The learned counsel for the O.Ps. argued that an award has been passed against the complainant on 04.07.14 by the Arbitrator. The complainant has filed this dispute on 27.08.14 which is after the award is passed by the Arbitrator on 04.07.14 . Hence, this Fora lacks jurisdiction to entertain the C.C. Case.

                        On the above pleadings, arguments we have referred to the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in Installment Supply Ltd Vrs. Kangra Ex-Service man Transport Co.& another (2006 (3) CPR-339-NC : 2007 (1) CPC-411 and another judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in Tata Motor Finance Ltd, Vrs. Niranjan Palu (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 instance case it is revealed from the record and copy of the arbitration award that award was passed on 04.07.14 and thereafter the complainant has filed this consumer complaint on 27.08.14.

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

                        On merit also we have  verified the case record .  It is found that the O.Ps. have given final call letter to the customer on 02.07.12 by Regd. Post dt.11.07.12 to repay the outstanding dues. After issuance of Final Call letter when the complainant did not pay the outstanding dues the O.Ps. have repossessed the vehicle on 31.08.13. The O.Ps. have also

sold the vehicle after giving pre-sale notice to the complainant and guarantor by Regd. Post  dt.04.09.13. Hence we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and the C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed.

                                                                   O R D E R

                        Resultantly the Consumer Complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. without any cost.                       

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th  day of March ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                                               (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )

                                                                                                                        President.

(Sri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                  Typed to my dictation & corrected by me                                             

          Member                                                                        

 

 

                                                                                                    (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)

(Miss Smita  Ray )                                                                                   President.

     Lady  Member.