M.C.No.581 of 2023
F.A. No. 296 of 2022
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even she has filed the appeal, she is ready to settle the matter with the O.P. The O.P opposed the submission and stated that the appeal should be heard but no question of settlement arises. Therefore, we are inclined to dispose of the misc.case and appeal together.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. As it appears from the impugned order that the complainant has filed the complaint case to direct the O.P to receive the amount against the outstanding loan amount . He has availed the loan from the O.P for JCB BACKHOE LOADER machine for amount of Rs.21,36,285/- but he has already paid Rs.3,00,000/-. On the other hand, the O.P has taken the plea that they have already referred the matter to the arbitrator and the arbitrator has already passed the award but the complainant did not admit the said award stating that it was exparteorder to his knowledge. We have considered the submission practically pleadings as placed by both the parties.
4. we have gone through the impugned order. The order is very critic order. The order passed by the learned District Commission in para -2 is as follows;-
xxx xxx xxx
Perused the case record,documents filed by the parties. Advocate for O.ps filed Arbitration Award in SRR/CMP No.l79 of 2018 of Hon’ble arbitrator Ms.S.RajeniRamadass,advocate Chennai date 26.11.2018. The case is relating to loan agreement no.XOCERRA-00002151406 dated 28.10.2017 which is a subject matter of dispute in this complaint case. Cunningly the complainant suppressed the said fact in the complaint petition and praying for order from the Commission. The complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. In the other hand the Hon’ble state Commission in R.P.No.34/2021 given direction to provide reasonable opportunities to the O.Ps. Heard in length both the sides. The issue is taken up as preliminary issue on maintainability.
As the complainant suppressed the Arbitration case and filed this complaint after decision in arbitration case, there is no scope for this Commission to continue the case further.
Accordingly, on preliminary issue the case is disposed of on maintainability. As Arbitration case has already been decided the case is not maintainable and dismissed. Close all the Misc cases/I.A.cases relating to this complaint accordingly.”
5. It appears from the above order that the facts are not discussed in the complaint case and so also in misc. case. It is also not known from the impugned order when the Arbitrator has passed order in exparte or not.Every order should have judicial rational reasons. It appears that without analyzing the materials on record, learned District Commission have passed the impugned order only with reason complainant suppressed the arbitration claim. No reason has been assigned. In view of the above observations, we find it is a fit case to remand to the learned District commission. Therefore, we allow the appeal and remand the matter to the learned District Commission to hear both the parties, pass speaking order after framing issues in the complaint case an pass order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District commission on 04.07.2023 to take further instruction from it.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
