Haryana

Karnal

CC/175/2016

Ram Juvari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Taneja

03 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No.175 of 2016

                                                      Date of instt. 02.06.2016

                                                      Date of decision: 03.04.201

 

Ram Juvari, aged about 68 years, son f Shri Banarsi Dass, resident of village & P.O. Picholia, District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., SCO 246, Sector-12, Karnal, District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Branch Office SCO 153-155, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3. Aman Sandhu, Recovery Agent, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. SCO no.246 Sector-12, Karnal, District Karnal.

4. Rajesh Malik, Recovery Head, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Royal-2, plot no.1181, G.T. Road, near Gurudwara, Panipat, District Panipat.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

             

 

 Present  Shri Ajay Taneja Advocate for complainant.

               Shri G.S.Khillan Advocate for opposite parties.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant had obtained tractor loan of Rs.4,41,696/- from OPs no.1 and 2, vide agreement no.454686. In lieu of repayment of the loan amount, the complainant had given sufficient security to the OP no.1 by way of mortgage of his land and also given some blank cheques as per direction of OP no.1. It is pertinent to mention here that Jaswinder Singh son of the complainant was guarantor of the said loan and the OP no.1 also obtained some blank cheques from Jaswinder Singh. By making down payment, the complainant purchased a Mahindra Arjun tractor, Model 2009 and H.P.A for the same was also entered in the registration certificate of the tractor. Registration no.HR-05Y-3815 was allotted for the said tractor. After obtaining loan, the complainant had been paying the six monthly installments of the loan to OP no.1 regularly without any default. OPs no.3 and 4 who are recovery agent of the OPs no.1 and 2 used to collect the installment in cash from the complainant and issue receipt for the same under their signatures. Complainant repaid total sum of Rs.8,39,200/- towards loan amount of Rs.4,41,696/-. The collection agents of the OPS no.1 and 2 did not issue certain receipts but all the amount of installments paid by the complainant duly mentioned in the account statement of the OPs no.1 and 2. On 31.1.2016, the OPs no.3 and 4 alongwith 4-5 unknown person came to the house of complainant and demanded the entire outstanding amount in lump sum. The complainant stated that only one installment remains due and the same will be paid next month but OPs no.3 and 4 did not agree to the same and asked the complainant to bring the tractor alongwith all the documents and took away the tractor alongwith documents with them forcibly and illegally. It is further alleged that before snatching the tractor and its document, no notice was ever served upon the complainant or his son by the OPs. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and locus standi and concealments of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant obtained a loan for the purchase of vehicle bearing no.HR05Y-3815 for a total sum of Rs.4,41,696/-. A loan agreement no.TFF 454686 dated 15.06.2009 was executed between the complainant and the OP bank for a period of 72 months. The complainant did not stick to the schedule of making payment of monthly installments to the bank as such an amount of Rs.3,28,842.63P became due towards the complainant. It is incorrect that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.8,39,200/-. The vehicle in question was repossessed legally and lawfully after adopting the procedure under the order dated 24.08.2015 of arbitral tribunal of Sh. Kamaljeet Singh Sole Arbitrator Jalandhar on the application Under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The OP no.3 was appointed as receiver by the arbitral tribunal to take the possession of the vehicle. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 15.09.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajan Sharma Manager Ex.OPW1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 12.2.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties  and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.4,41,696/- for the purchase of tractor bearing registration no.HR05Y-3815, vide loan agreement no.TFF 454686  dated 15.6.2009 executed between the parties.

7.             According to the complainant, he repaid Rs.8,39,200/- towards the loan amount mentioned above. It is further alleged that on 31.1.2016, OP no.3 and 4 alongwith 4-5 other persons came to the house of the complainant and demanded entire remaining amount and on the asking of the complainant that the same will be paid in the next month, the OPs no.3 and 4 did not agree and took away the tractor with him.

8.             On the other hand, the OP contended that the matter in question has already been seized by the arbitral tribunal Jalandhar and arbitration proceeding has already been initiated against the complainant, so the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further contended that the complainant has not paid the loan installments amounting to Rs.3,28,842.63P and the tractor in question was taken in due course of law. It is also argued that now the Arbitrator has passed the arbitral award, vide order dated 16.1.2016, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.

7.             Without going into any other controversy, from the pleading and evidence of the case, it is clear that the matter was referred to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator passed the Arbitral award on 16.1.2016 and the copy of the same has been produced by the OPs at the time of remaining arguments. When the Arbitrator has passed the award, the complaint of the complainant before this Forum is not maintainable. In this regard we can rely upon the authority cited in 2017(2) CLT 529 (NC) titled as Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Manoj Mangal wherein it is held that Arbitration Award passed before the order passed in Consumer complaint and Award had neither been challenged anywhere, nor the same had been set aside by any competent court, the said award had attained finality. The Revision petition allowed by way of dismissing the complaint of the complainant.

In the present case also the arbitral award has been passed by the arbitrator vide order dated 16.01.2016 and the copy of the same has been placed on the file by the OPs. The complainant has not produced any evidence vide which it can be said that the Arbitral Award dated 16.01.2016 has been set aside. The authority mentioned above is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the authority, we are of the considered view that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.

7.             In view of the above discussions, we found that the complaint is not maintainable after the Arbitral Award and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 03.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                         President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                    (Anil Sharma)

                       Member