JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties present. Ms. Vinita Chandrakant Giri prays for adjournment. There is no ground. She has advanced no arguments from the opposite parties. Arguments heard. 2. Costs paid. 3. Shri Madan Lal Jat, the complainant, took a loan in the sum of Rs.1,37,000/- from the OP/Bank for purchase of a car. He made total payment in the sum of Rs.1,75,196/-. The said payment was made in equated monthly installments (EMI) of Rs.3650/- in 48 months from 27.8.2006 to 27.7.2010. The allegation of the complainant is that Indusind Bank/OP had received Rs.1,92,004/- in various installments till 21.3.2010. Despite this, the bank issued demand notice dated 12.11.2010 for recovery of Rs.76,917/- despite receiving the excess amount of Rs.16,808/-. The complainant filed the consumer complaint first of all. 4. In the meantime, the Arbitrator gave the award on 25.2.2011. It is surprising to note that after the award was passed by the Arbitrator, both the fora below rendered the decision in favour of the complainant on 10.4.2012 and 18.7.2013. 5. We are of the considered view that both the fora have committed egregious mistake in passing the orders when the Arbitrator had passed the award earlier. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the award passed by the District Forum was not in his knowledge. This is faint argument, whether, it was in his knowledge or not, the decision given subsequently, contrary to the award passed by the arbitrator, is unsustainable. To avoid the duplicity of the judgments, the fora below should not have passed the order. The order passed by the Arbitrator shall prevail under the circumstances. If the complainant has got any grouse, he can challenge it before the Appellate Court. The absurd position will prevail when an order was passed by Arbitrator in favour of one party and another order was passed in favour of another party. Consequently, we set aside the orders passed by fora below, accept the revision petition and dismiss the complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to challenge the arbitrator’s award as per law. |
