DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 13^th day of March 2024.                                                                                             

                           Filed on: 04/04/2019

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member               

C.C. No. 158/2019

COMPLAINANT

Nisha V.P., D/o. Pavithran V.K., Vezhekkatt House, Perumpadapp, Palluruthi P.O., Pin 682006

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTY No.1 & 2

1. Manager, Vinod Babu, Sreeram Transport Finance, Ernakulam, 36/847, Near Krishna Nursing Home, Chittoor Road.
2. No. 221, Shriram Transport, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600004, Near Vidha Mandin Senior Secondary.

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint has been filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant financed a Maruti car for 3,02000 rupees from Shriram Finance. They continued to pay off the finance. Subsequently, the complainant faced financial difficulties, leading to default on the loan payments. At that point, Shriram's manager, Vinod Babu, asked to take back the car. During this time, the car was involved in an accident. The workshop informed that there was 1,27,000 rupees worth of work needed on the car. However, the insurance was taken from Shriram. Shriram's surveyor inspected the car and approved 20,000 rupees. But the approved insurance amount was taken by Shriram Insurers to Shriram Finance. Despite requesting manager Vinod Babu to release the insurance amount, it was not granted. It was stated that the insurance amount was taken towards the loan due to default. The car has been lying in the workshop since 01.10.2014. The complainant's guarantor, a girl named Soji Pappachan, had her house attached and was threatened at her workplace by the opposite party. The complainant has two daughters, one of whom is unwell. This has resulted in financial loss, health problems, mental anguish, and family issues for the complainant, all attributed to the Shriram Insurance Company. Therefore, a compensation of four lakh rupees is being sought.

2) Notice

The notice issued to the opposite parties was dispatched by the Commission. Despite acknowledging receipt of this notices, the opposite parties failed to submit their versions. Consequently, they have been set as ex-parte in this proceeding.

3) . Evidence

          The complainant had filed an ex-parte proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-5.

Exhibit A-1: a copy of the affidavit in response to the claim petition filed by the complainant under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

 Exhibit A-2: photographs

Exhibit A-3: a copy of the hospital certificate.

 Exhibit A-4: a copy of the certificate from the workshop and the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle.

Exhibit A-5: copies issued by Shriram General Insurance.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

           i)      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?

ii)      If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

iii)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)      The issues mentioned above are considered together and are        answered as follows:

The complainant got a loan for a Maruti car worth 3,02,000 rupees from Shriram Finance. They fell into financial trouble and couldn't pay the loan. Shriram's manager, wanted the car back. Then, the car had an accident needing repairs for 1,27,000 rupees. Shriram's insurance only approved 20,000 rupees. This money went towards the loan, not the repairs. Since October 1, 2014, the car has been in the workshop. The complainant's guarantor faced legal issues and workplace threats. The complainant's family suffered financially, health-wise, and emotionally. They want four lakh rupees in compensation from Shriram Insurance.

We have carefully heard the submission made at length by the complainant and have also considered the entire evidence on record.

The resolution of consumer disputes through arbitration hinges on the consumer's affirmative choice to opt for arbitration post-dispute emergence, regardless of any prior arbitration agreements. This approach is rooted in the Consumer Protection Act, which is designed to safeguard consumer interests by treating such disputes as non-arbitrable unless the consumer explicitly selects arbitration as the resolution path over seeking remedies in judicial forums. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, further empowers courts to refuse the appointment of an arbitrator for disputes classified as non-arbitrable.

The Honourable Supreme Court of India, in M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors. vs. B. Udayasri I (Civil Appeal Nos. 6500 ­ 6501 of 2023.), reinforced the principle that arbitration of consumer disputes is contingent on the consumer's post-dispute decision to engage in arbitration, overriding any prior arbitration agreements. Consequently, the Telangana High Court's refusal to appoint an arbitrator, upon the consumer's choice to seek redress through the District Consumer Commission, was affirmed.

This stance is consistent with the precedent set by Emaar MGF Land Ltd. vs. Aftab Singh (2019) 12 SCC 751.), which addressed the interplay between Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Emaar ruling specified that consumers are not bound to pursue arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act if they opt for litigation through consumer courts instead.

In the present case, despite the background context of arbitration in consumer disputes, the complainant had engaged with the arbitration process as evidenced by the submission of an affidavit in response to the claim petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Exhibit A-1), and the attachment of property through legal proceedings. By choosing arbitration initially and then turning to the consumer commission post-arbitration, the complainant deviated from the procedural norm. The appropriate legal course would have been to challenge the arbitration award in a civil court.

ORDER

Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the complainant's contentions lack merit. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed without costs. The complainant retains the liberty to seek redress in an appropriate court for her grievances.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the13^th day of March 2024

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exhibit A-1: a copy of the affidavit in response to the claim petition filed by the complainant under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

 Exhibit A-2: photographs

Exhibit A-3: a copy of the hospital certificate.

 Exhibit A-4: a copy of the certificate from the workshop and the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle.

Exhibit A-5: copies issued by Shriram General Insurance.

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 158/2019

Order Date: 13/03/2024