JUDGMENTHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The complainant/respondent obtained finance to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the petitioner company for purchase of a vehicle and a loan agreement dated 25.09.2006 was executed between the parties. The wife of the complainant stood as guarantor for the loan taken by him. The vehicle was allegedly surrendered by the wife of the complainant on account of the inability of the complainant to pay the dues of the petitioner company. The respondent thereupon lodged a complaint alleging forcible repossession of his vehicle. The vehicle was returned to the complainant, on the orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The complainant again defaulted in payment of the said loan and the vehicle was therefore, repossessed on 17.07.2009. The police, on a report lodged by the complainant, seized the vehicle and delivered it to the complainant on 21.07.2009. The petitioner company initiated arbitration proceedings against respondent in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties and an award in its favour was delivered on 05.05.2014. In the meanwhile, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint alleging forcible dispossession of the vehicle on 17.07.2009 and sought compensation from the petitioner company. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to him. The order passed by the District Forum was challenged by the complainant before the concerned State Commission. The petitioner company also challenged the said order, by way of an independent appeal. 2. The complainant then filed a second complaint seeking compensation from the petitioner company. 3. The State Commission before which two appeals had been filed, one by the complainant and the other by the petitioner company, dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant and allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner company. The matter was remanded back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication. Both the complaints filed by the respondent were decided by the District Forum vide order dated 14.02.2014 directing the petitioner company to pay compensation aggregating to Rs. 10,25,000/- to the complainant. 4. The petitioner company preferred two appeals being F.A. No. 352 of 2014 and F.A. No. 353 of 2014 against the order of the District Forum dated 14.02.2014. FA No. 17 of 2015 was filed by the complainant against the aforesaid order of the District Forum. The said appeals are still pending disposal before the State Commission. 5. The respondent/complainant filed a petition before the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. In the said petition, the District Forum, vide order dated 15.04.2016, issued Non Bailable Warrants of arrest of the Managing Director of the petitioner company. It was further directed by the District Forum that the Managing Director of the petitioner company would be released on his giving bail for the decreetal amount and interest on that amount aggregating to Rs. 15,54,226/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission with the following prayers: a) Call for the records of the case in F.A. Nos. 352 & 353 of 2014 and F.A. No. 17 of 2015 and decide the same expeditiously and b) Call for the records of the Execution Petition and quash/set-aside the same since the State Commission is not in existence and cannot be approached in this regard. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the maintainability of the revision petition, in the light of the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending before the State Commission, though the said State Commission is not functional for want of requisite corum. 7. Pursuant to an interim order of this Commission dated 17.05.2016, the entire amount payable to the complainant in terms of the order of the District Forum has already been deposited with this Commission. 8. Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act confers upon this Commission the power to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which his pending before or has been decided by any State Commission, where it appears to this Commission that such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 9. The contention of the complainant was that since the State Commission had no occasion to consider the application of the petitioner for staying the execution of the order of the District Forum dated 14.02.2014 during the pendency of the appeals filed by the petitioner company, it cannot be said that the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or it has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it. The learned counsel for the petitioner company on the other hand contended that since the State Commission is non-functional for want of corum, it would be a case of the State Commission having failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to stay the execution of the order of the District Forum dated 14.02.2014 during the pendency of the appeals filed by the petitioner company. 10. It is not as if no State Commission has been constituted for the State of Tamil Nadu in terms of Section 9(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission does exist but it is unable to function for want of the requisite corum. Such a situation in my opinion, would amount to the State Commission failing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law, to stay the execution of the order of the District Forum dated 14.02.2014, during pendency of the appeals filed by the petitioner company. So long as there is a failure on the part of the State Commission to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law, the reason on account of which it has failed to exercise the said jurisdiction would be immaterial. In any case, even if two views on the interpretation of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act are possible, this Commission ought to lean in favour of a view which would sub-serve the cause of justice and prevent the multiplicity of litigation. If the petition is dismissed on the ground that this is not a case of State Commission failing to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, the petitioner would be driven to file a writ petition before the Concerned High Court and that would amount to encouraging multiplicity of proceedings. Even the respondent who is a consumer appearing in person, would gain nothing by driving the petitioner company to the writ jurisdiction of the concerned High Court. 11. As noted earlier, the petitioner company has already deposited the entire amount payable to the complainant in terms of the order of the District Forum dated 14.02.2014, before this Commission. The revision petition is therefore, disposed of with the following directions: (i) The execution of the order of the District Forum dated 14.02.2014 shall remain stayed till the appeals filed by the petitioner company against the said order are decided by the concerned State Commission. (ii) The amount which the petitioner company has deposited in this Commission, pursuant to the interim order dated 17.05.2016, shall be kept in the fixed deposit and shall abide by the final decision in the appeals filed by the petitioner company against the order of the District Forum dated 14.02.2014. | 
