DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 5^th day of July 2014 

Present:  Smt.Seena.H.  President

              Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member

              Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                      Date of filing :   21/06/2014

           CC No.87/2014

Krishnan.T.R.

Thottapura House,

Akathethara (PO),

Palakkad – 678 008

(By Adv.T.G.Suresh)                                      -                  Complainant

        Vs 

1.Jomet.K.J.

   (Authorised Signatory),

   S/o.K.J.Joseph,

   Dy.Manager,

   M/s.Kotak Mahindra Pvt.Ltd.,

   Ernakulam Office,

   Thadikkaran  Centre,

   Palarivattom,

   Cochin – 682 055.   

2.Dy.Manager,

   Kotak Mahindra Prime

   2^nd Floor, Friends Shopping Mall,

   Shoranur Road,

   Near Thiruvambadi Temple,

   Thrissur                                          -                  Opposite parties

 O R D E R

Order by Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief:

Complaint is pertaining to a car loan issued to the complainant in the year 2011. Monthly installments were regularly paid upto February 2013. Thereafter installments could not be paid as the complainant was bed ridden due to an accident. Opposite party  registered an arbitration case No.56/14 before the Arbitrator. As per the interim order  of Arbitrator dated 10/03/2014, opposite party has taken possession of the vehicle also. Thereafter  complainant received post sale notice issued by opposite party stating that the vehicle has been sold to the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- and an outstanding amount of Rs.3,26,155/- is due to 1^st opposite party. According to the complainant, the vehicle fetch minimum of Rs.3 lakhs. Hence complaint filed directing opposite party to return the car on payment of Rs.1,35,000/- alongwith Rs.One lakh as compensation.

Complaint posted for hearing on admission. Heard complainant.

It is seen that already arbitration proceedings has been initiated against the complainant and an interim order was also passed by the arbitrator. In HDFC Bank Ltd., V/s. Yarlagadda Krishna Murthy I (2014) CPJ 38 (AP), Hon’ble State Commission has held that “once complainant opts for remedy of arbitration he cannot file a complaint under Consumer Protection Act”. Further Hon’ble National Commission has elaborately discussed whether two similar proceedings for the relief can be persuaded before 2 different Forums in Hanman Prasad Vs. The New Indian Assurance Co.Ltd., (1994)CPJ 1 (NC), it was held that when a case is pending in a court in which full evidence is to be recorded, the Forums constituted under Consumer Protection Act 1986 should not entertain the complaint with respect to the same cause of action. Recently in Beverly Park Maintenance Services Ltd., Vs.Kashmir Tab Styles Pvt.Ltd., Revision petition No.2064 of 2012, National Commission Order dated 13^th March 2014, Hon’ble National Commission held that ‘once respondent participated in proceedings before the arbitrator, proceedings for the relief could not have been initiated before the Consumer Forum”. Further held that the words “in addition” appearing in Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act  enables complainant to file complaint before consumer fora also if not filed before other Forum.

In view of the dictum laid down in the above discussed decision, we are of the view that complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. Hence,  without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 5^th  day of  July 2014. 

       Sd/-

  Seena H

  President   

     Sd/-

 Shiny.P.R.

  Member

      Sd/-

 Suma.K.P.

 Member