PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. Sh. Zaffar Mahmood purchased a vehicle from Oberai Motors, P.O. Majra, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun –OP-1 on 18.08.2003 for a sum of Rs. 4,03,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- in cash to the OP-1 and the remaining amount was financed by Ashok Leyland Finance Limited, Haridwar now merged into IndusInd Bank Limited- OP-2. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 1,01,500/- to the financier through various instalments. It is true that he did not make the payment of two instalments. Consequently, the vehicle was repossessed by the IndusInd Bank Limited-OP-2 on 14.08.2004. OP-2 issued a recovery notice in the sum of Rs. 2,32,528/- against the complainant. The complainant alleged deficiency and filed a complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 2. The defense set up by the Opposite Party is that the complaint was not maintainable as the Arbitrator had already passed the award. The vehicle was repossessed on 14.08.2004 and was auctioned on 31.12.2004 because the complainant waddled out of the commitments he had made. The present complaint was filed before the District Forum on 20.08.2008. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant is barred by time and the complaint was dismissed U/s 24A (I) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission also dismissed the complaint on second count that since the order was passed by the Arbitrator, therefore, the complaint was barred by time as per the decisions of the “National Commission in the case of Instalment Supply Ltd. Vs. Kangra Ex-serviceman Transport Co. and another” I (2007) CPJ 34 (NC) and S. Balwant Singh Vs. Kanpur Development Authority; III (2007) CPJ 425 (NC) 3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the cause of action had arisen in July 2007 when the illegal demand was made from the complainant. We are unable to accept this contention. The cause of action had arisen on 14.08.2004 and again on 31.12.2004 when the vehicle was repossessed and sold. The notice of demand simplicitor, as per the Arbitrator’s order of as per the accounts does not give rise to further cause of action, the case is clearly barred by time and the order passed by the Consumer Fora could give rise to duplicity of opinions/judgments. The case is, therefore, barred as per the principles of res judicata. The order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. 4. The Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. |
