Orissa

Cuttak

CC/22/2020

Sahadev Roul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance - Opp.Party(s)

S K Behera & associates

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.22/2020

Sahadev Roul,

S/O:Sri Joginath Roul,

At:Somapada,(Majhi Sahi),P.O:Badabhuin,

P.S:Tigiria,Dist:Cuttack..                                                             ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.         Mahindra & Mahindra Finance

Represented through it’s Branch Manager,

                          2^nd Floor,Sumit Plaza,

                             At/PO:Badambadi,Dist/City:Cuttack(Odisha).

 

2.        Mahindra & Mahindra Finance

                             Represented through it’s Manager,

                             511,1^st floor Mahindra Tower,

                             Rasulgarh,Bhubaneswar-751010.

 

3.        Tahasildar, Tigiria

                            At/PO/PS:Tigiria,Dist:Cuttack.

                            Pin-754030.

 

4.       RTO,Bhubaneswar,

                           At/PO:Bhoinagar(sub office),

                           Dist:Khorda.                                                                                  ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    05.02.2020

Date of Order:  28.07.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. S.K.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1 & 2:          Mr. P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3 & 4:                              None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                             

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that in order to earn his livelihood, he had purchased a Mahindra Bolero vehicle by getting finance from O.P No.1 to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- and the instalment for return of the loan per month was fixed @ Rs.16,135/-.  The said Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-02-AP-6169 was engaged by the complainant for use of the B.D.O,Tigiria and subsequently for the use of Tahsildar with effect from 18.2.19 till 23.10.20 for a monthly rent of Rs.16,900/-.  When the complainant could not clear the monthly instalments as due from him, the O.Ps had seized his vehicle without listening to his request for granting further time in order to clear the arrear instalments.  The complainant has further alleged that on 11.12.19 a notice from the Arbitration was issued to him wherein order of the Arbitrator has subsequently been passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the complainant.  It is for this, the complainant had filed this case seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- also seeking direction to the O.Ps to release his seized Mahindra Bolero vehicle and also seeking direction to O.P No.4 for abstaining from registering  the ownership of the said vehicle in favour of any third party.  The complainant has further claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the O.Ps 1 & 2 towards his mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the O.Ps towards the cost of the litigation.

            Complainant has filed Xerox copy of certain documents in order to establish his case.

2.         Out of the four O.Ps arrayed in this case, O.Ps No.3 & 4 have been set exparte as because they both have not contested this case.  However, O.Ps No.1 & 2 contested this case and have filed their joint written version.  The O.Ps through their written version have stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable since because notice was duly served upon the complainant in the Arbitration proceeding, the vehicle in question was repossessed after issuance of notice to the complainant dt.21.2.19 asking him to clear the dues and take back his vehicle and when the complainant had not co-operated, the vehicle was sold through auction and request was made to the O.P No.4 for change of ownership of the said vehicle to the new owner.  The O.Ps No.1 & 2 have relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Manas Constructions vs. L & T Finance Ltd. and another wherein it is held that Consumer Complaint and Arbitration proceeding cannot proceed simultaneously.  They have also relied upon another decision in the case of M/s. Magma Fin. Cop. Ltd. Vs. Gulzar Ali wherein it is held that “the terms and conditions of the agreement to this effect do not bar jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, but if the parties opt to proceed first of all before the Arbitrator, in that event Jurisdiction of this Consumer Fora stands barred”.  Accordingly they have urged through their written version that the complaint petition as filed by the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  They have also filed copies of certain documents to prove their case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments both of the complaint petition and that of written version as available in the case record, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues for proper adjudication of this case.

i.          Whether the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.1.

            Out of the three issues, issue no.1 being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration. 

            As per the xerox copies of the Arbitration notice issued to the complainant which has been filed by the O.Ps along with their written version, when perused and also from the complaint petition it is noticed that the complainant had knowledge about the Arbitration proceeding.  The interim order of the Arbitrator as filed goes to show that it was passed in the issue inbetween the complainant and the O.Ps for which the complainant has approached this Commission.  But keeping in mind the pertinent decision as cited by the O.Ps that there was first preference for arbitration proceeding which was well within the knowledge of the complainant, this Commission ceases it’s jurisdiction when the Arbitration proceeding has been proceeded with in between the complainant and the O.Ps to this case.  Accordingly it can never be said that the complaint case as filed by the complainant is maintainable.  This issue is thus answered against the complainant.

Issues No.2 & 3.

            From the above discussions, it is needless to discuss about these two issues further in this case.  Hence it is so ordered.

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

            Order pronounced in the open court on the 28^th day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member