D.O.F: 26/03/2016

                                                                                               D.O.O: 06/12/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.106/16

Dated this, the 6^th day of December 2018

PRESENT:

SRI.ROY PAUL                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M  : MEMBER

Zubair Haji Muhammed, Aged 32 Years

S/o Muhammed Haji, Business

R/at Zubaidha Manzil,Ulvar                 .                                   : Complainant

Kumbla, Kasaragod 671317

(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)

 M/s Sriram Transport Finance Company limited,

Sri ram Complex, Vidyanagar

Kasaragod                                                                               : Opposite Party

Represented by its Manager

(Adv: Babuchandran.K)

            ORDER

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M  : MEMBER

The facts of the case in brief are as follows.

                That the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 7, 50,000/- from Opposite Party on 04-10-2010 for the purchase of a MGV Tipper No. KL14J 8684. The loan was to be repaid in 48 equal monthly installments of Rs 24,000/- . The complainant was regular in repayment of loan. However the Opposite Party often accredited the payment towards incidental charges and additional interest against letter as spirit and the regulatory guidelines of Apex Bank and in breach of general usury limit. The complainant has approached the Opposite Party on 18-03-2016 and offered to pay the entire loan with interest so as to obtain “No due Certificate” but the Opposite Party refused to issue the same by demanding exhorbitant interest. The Opposite Party is demanding interest at the rate of 36% per annum in violation of in Kerala Moneylenders Act. Hence this complaint is filed to restrain the Opposite Party from levying usurious rate of interest and illegal charges and directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.

             The notice issued to the Opposite Party is duly served and the Opposite Party entered in appearance through his counsel who filed written version.

            As per the version of the Opposite Party this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Opposite Party admitted the taking of loan of                      Rs. 7, 50,000/- by the complainant for purchasing of the Tipper. But they denied the other allegations. It is stated that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and never paid EMI in stipulated date. As per the agreement the complainant is liable to pay overdue interest at the rate of 3% per month over the defaulted EMI and as on 06-04-2016, the Complainant has to pay 5, 88,710 towards the loan account. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and they are not liable to pay the amount claimed in the complaint.

            Thereafter on 21-03-2018, the counsel of the Opposite Party produced a copy of the Arbitration Award dated 15^th February 2017 in Op No. 108/2016 on the file of the Arbitrator Sri. C.H. VishnuBhat. The above document shows that the petitioner therein is the Opposite Party and the respondents are the complainant herein and another person namely Abdul Rahiman. The subject matter of the arbitration proceedings No. 108/2016, which is the loan amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- borrowed by the complainant herein for the purchase of the Eicher Tipper No. KL.4 J 8684. The arbitration proceeding has been initiated by the Opposite Party herein to recover the due amount of Rs. 5,88,710/- from the complainant herein and another person. In that case the notices sent to the respondents including the complaint herein have been served but they remained absent and set ex-parte.

            In this case the above arbitration award is not at all challenged by the complainant here in. This complaint is filed on 25-03-2016. The arbitration proceeding is also filed in 2016. There is no bar in proceeding arbitration case and consumer case simultaneously upon the same subject matter. But it is the settled law that when an arbitration award is passed and disposed off by the arbitration award that will prevail.

             Therefore in this case, this Forum holds that this consumer complaint must be closed in view of the Arbitration award dated 15^th February 2017. There is no jurisdiction for this Fora in a matter an Arbitration Award is passed, as per the decision reported in CPJ 2016 (IV) NC 35.Hence the complaint is dismissed.

     Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                                      Forwarded by order

Ps/                                                                                                  Senior Superintendent