IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 499/10 DATED 30.06.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri. Mohammed Thameer S/o Mohammed Illiyas, K.R. Nagar, Rep. by Sri. Afjal S/o Ikbal Pasha, Major, D.No.41, Muslim Block, K.R. Nagar Town, Mysore District.<br /> (By Sri. H.B.S., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party M/s Srirama Transport Finance Company Ltd., N.R. Mohalla, Near Reliance Fresh, Mysore.<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 24.06.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : <br /> Date of order : 30.06.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to repair the seized Lorry and to return the same in addition to a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from 21.11.2007 and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint and the material on record, we heard the learned advocate for the complainant regarding admissibility and maintainability of the complaint. After the Forum posted the matter for orders, for the complainant an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, is filed. Though the handwritings of the affidavits are not so clear, by reading in between the lines, the reasons assigned for the delay is that the complainant had filed a suit before the court and that the complainant is poor, earning his food from the income of the Lorry.<br /> <br /> 3. We have further heard the learned advocate for the complainant.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider firstly, whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the complaint and secondly, whether the complaint is admissible and maintainable?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding is in negative for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. According to the complainant, on 20.08.2006, he purchased the Lorry KA 20A 3786 raising loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party and it was hypothecated. As per the terms of the hypothecation, complainant was paying monthly installments. When half of the loan was repaid, on the ground that the complainant did not pay installments of one or two months, for the reasons the Lorry was met with an accident, on 21.11.2007 without notice opposite party seized the Lorry along with instruments worth more than Rs.40,000/-. Then the complainant filed O.S. NO.17/2008 and the court ordered to refer the matter of the arbitrator, on 25.09.2008. Thereafter opposite party did not approach the arbitrator.<br /> <br /> 7. Certified copy of the order dated 25.09.2008 in O.S. No. 17/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) JMFC at K.R. Nagar on an interim application is on record. By the said order the application submitted by the present opposite party Under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was allowed and the matter was ordered to the referred to be Arbitrar. Also, it is ordered the parties to take necessary steps in the matter.<br /> <br /> 8. Hence, it is clear from the material on record that, the present complainant had filed original suit before the Civil Court in which on the application present opposite party, the dispute was ordered to be referred to the Arbitrar for the decision. When such an order is there, we are of the opinion that, the present complaint is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant has alleged that, after the order opposite party has not approached the Arbitrator. If for any reason, the present opposite party failed to take necessary steps to initiate arbitration proceedings or to appear before the Arbitrar, the present complaint could have taken appropriate steps as per the said order, in accordance with law. Hence, when already there is an order of competent Civil Court in respect of the dispute between the parties, the present complaint is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 10. As regards, limitations, as alleged, opposite party seized the vehicle on 21.11.2007 and the present complaint is filed on 30.06.2010 nearly after about 2 ½ years. Reason assigned to condone the delay is that the complainant had approached the Civil Court and opposite party has not taken steps as per the order. That cannot be considered the ground condone the delay. Hence, delay cannot be condoned. <br /> <br /> 11. For the reasons noted above particularly, in view of the fact that complainant had already approached the competent Civil Court to get his grievance redressed and already there is an order, present complaint is not maintainable and as such, following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 30th June 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />