Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President .<br /> In nutshall, the case of the Complainant is that, he had purchased one Indica Car in the year 2006 being financed by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant was paying the monthly installment regularly and he has already paid an amount of Rs.2,80,000/-(Rupees two lac eight thousand)only as against a loan of Rs.3,83,000/-(Rupees three lac eighty three thousand)only. Due to same financial difficulties, some of the cheques issued by the Complainant were dishonored. Instead of issuing notices of payment, the Opposite Parties lodged a complaint case in the Court of S.D.J.M., Sambalpur against the Complainant alleging dishonestly/cheated the Opposite Parties and committed breach of trust and misappropriate the vehicle. The Complainant was arrested and forwarded to the Court where he was detained in custody for around thirteen days before bail was granted to him. The Complainant contends that when the Opposite Parties alleges the Complainant to be a cheater/fraud and initiated a criminal proceeding against the Complainant, the Opposite Parties should not have any claim against the cheques, the Complainant has issued against the said loan. But in the meantime the Opposite Parties had issued notice to the Complainant demanding payment against dishonored of cheques. The Opposite Parties cannot claim that the Complainant is a borrower and is liable to repay the loan through cheques issued by him. Since, the status of the Complainant to be a borrower or fraud is not decided in the criminal case initiated by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties should not claim the amount under cheques issued by the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that, such type of mischievous action of the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which he suffered monetarily and loss of reputation which can not be repaired.<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims, Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lac fifty thousand)only towards harassment, mental agony and loss of reputation besides Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only towards litigation cost. Further, in view of allegation of fraud against the Complainant, the agreement regarding loan does not exist and the Opposite Parties are not entitled to recover the same under the said agreement.<br /> <br /> In its version the Opposite Parties Company challenges the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in view of fact of Arbitration in Article-17 and jurisdiction in Article-16 of the Agreement. The Complainant has admitted that the disputes if any between the Parties have to be referred to the Sole Arbitrator for arbitration and also agreed in jurisdiction clause that courts at Chennei shall have exclusive jurisdiction for litigation arising out of the agreement. The present matter arises out of an agreement and hence is a contractual dispute which comes with in the preview of competent Civil Court. The Opposite Parties Company contends that since Arbitration proceeding is prejudiced before the learned arbitrator prior, the present dispute if any may be referred to the Sole Arbitrator Under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act-1996, and the present complaint is in fractious.<br /> <br /> It challenges the maintainability of the dispute on the ground that, the dispute involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute and does not fall with in the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and is exclusively triable by a Civil and Criminal Court having jurisdiction. The Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Penal Code. The alleged disputes by the Complainant under the said Act are nonest null and void and without jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties company contends that, the Complainant has availed a loan Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lac)only which was to be repaid along with finance charges of Rs.82,000/-(Rupees eighty two thousand)only. The Complainant has not paid Rs. 2,80,000/-(Rupees two lac eighty thousand)only against the loan of Rs.3,82,800/-(Rupees three lac eighty two thousand eight hundred)only. Even though the Complainant has opted for PDC mode of payment, but the cheques were regularly dishonored and the charges were debited to the Complainant's loan account. The Complainant was not paying the installments regularly and was a defaulter in payment of installments. The Opposite Parties has issued demand notice Dt. 05/05/2008, notice Dt.05/09/2008 and Dt. 27/10/2007 for payment of installments. But the Complainant did not come forward to clear up the installments as a result of which the outstanding amount as on Dt.14/03/2009 is Rs.1,65,992/-(Rupees one lac sixty five thousand nine hundred ninety two)only and the termination value as on Dt.14/03/2009 is Rs.3,13,554/-(Rupees three lac thirteen thousand five hundred fifty four)only. Issuance of notice Under Section 138 of the N. I. Act is the option of the Financer and the Complainant can not compel the Financer to issue such notice.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties submits that pendency of Criminal case is not bar for filing any case for recovery of legal dues. Criminal case is for the crime committed and recovery case is for the recover of legal debts. As both the proceedings are independent and are separate one as decided in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 594, both the criminal proceeding and Under Section 138 of N.I. Act proceeding can be initiated separately and the same can not be challenged here as because Consumer Protection Act is a an addition of Acts not in derogation of any other prevailing Acts. The allegation stated in the Criminal Case are matter to be decided by the Criminal Court where it is pending and not before this learned Forum. The present case has been filed at a very premature stage challenging the course of C.R.P.C.. Further more the Consumer Forum is not a Revisional Forum or a Appellate Forum of the Criminal Courts. So taking recourse of law is not deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice against a defaulter.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contends that, the subject matter of criminal trial is not a cause of action for filing of this consumer dispute. In case of any illegality in the Criminal Court it is open for the present Complainant to challenge the same before the higher Appellate Court and not before this Forum. Further the prayer for non recovering the loan dues under agreement is not a subject matter to be decided before a Consumer Forum. The Opposite Parties assails the maintainability of the case on the ground of suppression material facts i.e. Registration number of the vehicle, engine number and chassis number. Copies of Registration certificate and copies of insurance certificate. The Consumer Forum is not competent to look into the validity of the Agreement and the same can not be ignored by the Forum which is valid and executed between the Parties. The Complainant has came up with the complaint petition with an intention to avoid the loan liability. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and there is as such no unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties prays for dismissal of the case with heavy cost and to direct the Complainant to clear up the outstanding dues of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Parties's version as well as the copies of documents filed and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> It is not disputed by the Parties that the Complainant has purchased a India Car being financed by the Opposite Parties. He has paid some installments towards the loan amount and due to some financial difficulties, he could not pay some installments and some cheques issued in favour of the Opposite Parties were dishonored. In spite of notices of demand and for inspection of the financed vehicle, the Complainant neither paid the installments nor produced the vehicle for inspection of the financed vehicle. For the reason, the Opposite Parties lodged a Criminal Case in the court of S.D.J.M., Sambalpur against the Complainant alleging dishonestly deceived/cheat the Opposite Parties and committed breach of trust and misappropriated the vehicle. Now, the criminal case is pending for disposal. The subject matter of criminal case against the Complainant/accused is not a cause of action for filing of this Consumer dispute. In case of any illegality in the Criminal Court it is open to the Complainant to challenge the same before the Higher Appellate Court. The allegation stated in the Criminal case are matter to be decided by the competent court where it is pending and not before this Forum. For different cause of action different remedies are available under law but not according to the sweet will of the Complainant. Further more pendency of Criminal Case is not a bar for filing any case for recovery of legal dues. Criminal case is for the crime committed and recovery case is for the Recovery of legal debt. So both Recovery Case and Criminal Case can run simultaneously as both the case are independent and separate one. The above dispute raised by the Complainant is challenging the process of Criminal Court which is not legally proper. Further more the validity of the agreement executed between the Parties can not be decided by the Consumer Forum and ignored by the Consumer Forum as prayed by the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The subject matter involved in this dispute does not fall with in the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 as such it is not a consumer dispute. The Consumer Forum has got no jurisdiction and to adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the Complaint.<br /> <br /> Complaint dismissed and disposed of accordingly.<br /> No cost/compensation.