BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.130/17.
Date of instt.: 16.05.2017.
Date of Decision:09.1.2018.
Harinder Pal s/o Shri Gurdeep Singh, r/o village Chaku Ladana, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 220, Urban Estate, Saini Colony, Sector-13, Karnal.
..………Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Ankur Dhiman, Advocate for the Op.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got financed his tractor from Op on 24.2.2015 by depositing initially Rs.65,000/- in cash and remaining sale price was to be paid by him in half yearly installment at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per half yearly. It is further alleged that he got registered the said tractor from concerned Authority bearing Registration No.HR-09D-7326. It is further alleged that he deposited three half yearly installments of Rs.50,000/-. It is further alleged that due to demonetization, he could not deposit the four installments due in December 2016, but he was willing to deposit the same. It is further alleged that on 12.5.2017, 3 officials of bank/Op and 2 police officials of P.P. Ramthali came at his residence and forcibly taken away his tractor without disclosing anything. It is further alleged that he visited Op to pay the defaulting amount and to release his tractor, but Op did not pay any heed. This way, OP is deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, Op appeared before this Forum and filed reply submitting therein that the complainant has duly signed a written loan agreement bearing No.3084135 and as per clause 11.17, Kaithal courts have no jurisdiction to try and entertain any dispute between the complainant and Op, because in District Kaithal no any branch of Op is situated; that as per statement of account, Rs.2,81,444/- is total payables till 27.5.2017; Op bank has duly appoint a Arbitrator namely Shri Kamalendra Kumar Kamal Sole Arbitrator and ld. Arbitrator has passed the sale/repossession order vide its order dt. 28.4.2017; that thereafter, receiver appoints by Arbitrator moved one application to SP Kaithal for taking police help for repossession of tractor in question. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and so prayed for dismissal the same.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Mark CA to CH and closed evidence on 15.9.2017. On the other hand, Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed evidence on 30.11.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5 From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased the Tractor Eicher 241 bearing registration No.HR-09D-7326 under the loan agreement dt. 24.2.2015 (Ex.R-1) with the OP and the same was hypothecated with the OP. There is also no dispute that the complainant failed to make the timely payments of the installments of said loan. Shri Kamalendra Kumar Kamal has been appointed as Sole Arbitrator in the matter, who passed the award dt. 28.4.2017 and the OP has placed on the file the copy of said Award as Ex.R3. From the copy of that Arbitral Award Ex.R3, it is clear that the Award has been passed regarding the loan amount of tractor in question bearing No.HR-09D-7326. When the arbitrator proceedings have been completed and the Award has been announced, then the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. In this regard, we can rely upon the authority cited in 2015(4) CLT, page 422 (MP State Commission), titled as Shyamlal Patel Vs. Manager, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd & others, wherein it been held that Once the matter is referred to the Arbitrator and award is passed by the Arbitrator, then the complaint before the Distt. Forum, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable. Hence, in view of the said authority, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
6. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we found that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and hence, the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.09.1.2018.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Ankur Dhiman, Advocate for the OP.
Remaining arguments not advanced. On the joint request of ld. counsel for the parties, case is adjourned to 09.01.2018 for remaining arguments.
Dated:21.12.2017. Member Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Ankur Dhiman, Advocate for the OP.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:09.01.2018. Member Presiding Member.
