Orissa

Jajapur

CC/82/2014

Soubhagya Kumar Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Mahendra and Mahendra Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeepta Kumar Samal

16 Apr 2015

ORDER

                    IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                     Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President.

                                                                                     2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                     3. Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member. 

Dated the 16 th day of April,2015.

C.C.Case No.82 of 2014

Soubhagya Kumar Jena, S/O. Krushna ch.Jena

At/P.O.  Pandua , P.S. Ramchandrapur   

Dist. Keonjhar                                    ……………..Complainant .                                                                                    

                        (Versus)

1.Manager Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd,Mallick market complex

    At/P.O. Panikoili, Dist.Jajpur.

2. M/S Swapana Motors At/P.O. Jajpur Road, Dist.Jajpur.

3. M/S Swapna Motors (p) Ltd,Plot No.156/157/158,sector –A

    Mancheswar Industrial Estate,Bhubaneswar, Dist.Khurda.     ……………………Opp.Parties.             

 

For the Complainant:                    Sri  P.K. Samal , Advocate.

For the Opp.Party No.1:               Sri  P.K. Ray, Sri A. R. Sethy, Advocates.

For the Opp.Party No.2 and 3 :    Sri  D.C. Mohanty, S.K. Champati, Advocates.

                                                                                  Date of order:  16. 04. 2015

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY, MEMBER.

                        Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant purchased a Indigo Car bearing Regd. No.0R-04N-5677  after availing a loan from the O.Ps. under Hire Purchase Agreement. That the vehicle was insured with United Insurance Co. Ltd. During the subsistence of policy the vehicle met  with an accident . That thereafter the vehicle repaired at the workshop of Swapna Motors .The said work shop illegally demanded Rs.57,246/- after receipt of the settled claim amount from Insurance Company. That against such illegal demand by the workshop of Rs.57,246/, the complainant earlier filed a consumer complaint before this Forum bearing C.C.Case No.108/13 where O.P no.1 was a party in that dispute . That on 14.08.2014 the  Forum passed an order dismissing  the complaint as well as  advised the O.P no.1 not to take coercive action against the ill fated vehicle. That after release of the vehicle from the work shop the complainant has paid two installments on 23.09.14 and 23.10.14 respectively. In the mean time on the very day when the family members of the complainant was returning  from Cuttack ,  the O.P no.1  has repossessed the vehicle at Chandikhole Chhak without any prior notice .Hence, this dispute is filed by the complainant with the prayer to direct the O.P no.1 to release the seized vehicle along with to pay  Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.

                        On being noticed the O.P no.2 and 3 have appeared through their advocate and filed their written version stating  that the complaint  is not maintainable against  the O.Ps as the complainant has not sought any relief  against the said O.Ps.. That the C.C. Case No.108/13 rightly adjudicated by this Forum .Further due to  mischievous acts of the complainant , the O.P n o.2 and 3 have suffered a lot financially  and spent their valuable time for which the vexatious complaint should be dismissed with heavy cost.

                        The O.P no.1 have appeared through their advocate and filed their written version refuting the allegations made in the complaint petition. It is pleaded in the written version that the present consumer complaint is not maintainable in law, as it is has been filed after the arbitration award was passed by the learned Arbitrator on 04.08.2014 vide Arbitration Case No.1780989 of 2013 , in view of the Law Laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of installment Supply Ltd Vrs. Kanggra Ex-Serviceman Transport CO & another reported in 2007 (1)CPC-411.

 ‘ The issue involved in this case is whether a complaint can be decided by     the Consumer Fora after an arbitration award is already passed. The simple answer to this question is No”.

It is further submitted that the allegations contained in the Consumer Complaint relating to repossession of the vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle in question was repossessed and put to auction sale in compliance of the Arbitration award and the sale proceed was adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. Therefore the instant Consumer Complaint is not maintainable either in fact or in law and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

                        On the date of hearing we have heard arguments from the learned advocates for both the sides. Perused the record and documents available on record.

                        The learned counsel for the O.Ps. argued that an award has been passed against the complainant on 04.08.2014 by the Arbitrator. The complainant has filed this dispute on 05.11.2014 which is after the award is passed by the Arbitrator on 04.08.2014 . Hence, this Fora  lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present C.C. Case No.82/2014 .  

                        On the above pleadings, arguments we have referred to the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission reported in Installment Supply Ltd Vrs.Kangra Ex-service man Transport Co.& another (2006 (3) CPR-339-NC : 2007 (1) CPC-411 and another judgement of Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha Cuttack in Tata Motor Finance Ltd, Vrs. Niranjan Palu ( Revision petition No.97 / 2012) wherein it was held that :

“A complaint can not be decided by the Consumer For a after an arbitration      award is already passed “.

                        In this instance case it is revealed from the record and copy of the arbitration award that award was passed on 04.08.2014 and thereafter the complaint has filed this consumer complaint on 05.11.2014.

                        Basing on the pleadings, documents  and circumstances of the case and decision cited above we are of the opinion that when the dispute having been decided and award was made by sole Arbitrator, the subsequent C.C. Case No.82/2014  filed by the complainant is not maintainable.

                                                                   O R D E R

                        Resultantly the Consumer Complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. without any cost.                       

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th  day of April ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                                               (Shri Pitabas Mohanty )

                                                                                                                        Member.

(Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)                                             Typed to my dictation & corrected by me                                             

         President.                                                                      

 

 

                                                                                                    (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)

   (Miss Smita Ray )                                                                                  Member.

     Lady  Member.