Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1121/2019

Sh. Jasvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anuj Dewan

08 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1121/2019
Date of Institution	:	19.12.2019
Date of Decision	:	8.5.2023

 

Sh. Jasvir Singh S/o late Sh. Gurdev Singh R/o village Haveli Kalan, Distt. Rupnagar 140001

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Ms/ Tata Motors Finance Limited Registered Address at: 10^th F 106 A &  B, Makers Chambers III, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021.

Branch Office at:

SCO 11, First floor, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160019.

2. Director General of Police Punjab Police Headquarter, Sector 9 Chandigarh 160 009.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Government College Road Rupnagar 140001.  

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Arjun Dewan counsel for complainant.
		Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, counsel for  OP No.1 OP no.2 exparte OP No.3 exparte.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated that the complainant purchased  TATA Zest XE car  by securing loan from OP No.1 to the tune of Rs.5,06,376/- for a term of 4 years. The loan agreement was never provided  to the complainant and the original agreement is in possession of the OP No.1. The complainant paid first two installments on time but due to unforeseeable circumstances he could not pay the due installments in time thereafter he kept paying the minimum amount to keep the loan account running. But the representative of the OPs had taken the possession of the car from the complainant without signing any memo through the Reader of DSP  Rupnagar. The representative of OPs who were acting as court person told the complainant that the car will be parked at Dappar yard and if he comes with the remaining outstanding sum then only the car will be released.  The complainant received a legal notice dated 21.6.2019 from OP No.1 informing the complainant that it has sold the car in open auction and even after the sale of the same there remain an outstanding of Rs.2,01,812.77 and the complainant was asked to deposit the same. Consequently, the complainant lodged a police complaint dated 27.9.2019 against the Reader and the representative of Ops who fraudulently took away the keys of the car from the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The counsel for Opposite Party NO.1 on 28.10.2022 stated at bar that the application filed by OP No.1 for dismissal of the complaint be treated as written statement on behalf of OP No.1.
3. Opposite party No.1 in its reply admitted that the complainant availed loan  for the car in question from it and  stated that since the complainant failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the agreement and did not pay the agreed amount despite the repeated requests of the answering  OP. Consequently, an arbitrator was appointed. The Arbitrator passed interim order dated 16.2.2018 directing the complainant to handover the possession of the vehicle to the answering OP. Ultimately the Arbitrator passed the Arbitration Award dated 14.5.2018. After passing of award the complainant made some part payments and failed to clear outstanding amount against him.  Thus, the vehicle was re-possessed as per award dated 14.5.2018 passed by the ld. Arbitrator but still the complainant failed to pay the due amount and consequently,  the vehicle was sold by the OPs.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 19.02.2020 it was proceeded against exparte. Whereas reply was filed by OP No.3 on 14.8.2020, thereafter none appeared on behalf of OP No.3 consequently, it was proceeded a against exparte on 28.10.2022.
5. Opposite part No.3 in its reply has stated that as per record and report of Superintendent of Police (headquarter) Rupnagar, the car in question was handed over to the officials of OP No.1 by the complainant himself. It is further averred that the complainant failed to prove as to how a relation of consumer and service provider has been constituted between the complainant and the answering OP. It is further averred that the complaint No.2154/SSP dated 15.10.2019 was thoroughly inquired by Superintendent of police (Headquarter) , Rupnagar and it was reported by  Superintendent of police, (Headquarter) Rupnagar that complainant himself handed over his car to officials of OP No.1 and the when the loan amount was not repaid even after sale of the car in question and OP No.1 issued legal notice for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs.2,01,812.77 to complainant and on receipt of said legal notice only the complainant filed the complainant with the answering OP just to escape from the payment of  aforesaid outstanding amount of OP no.1. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the same has been made.
6. No rejoinder filed on behalf of complainant.
7. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
9. In the present case admittedly, the complainant took loan from OP No.1 to buy a car and could not pay installments in timely manner due to his unforeseeable circumstances.  The allegation of the complainant is that the representatives of the OPs have illegally taken away the possession of the car from him.
10. After going through evidence on record it is abundantly clear that as per Annexure R-2 notice was issued to the complainant on 8.2.2018 for the payment of the loan amount failing which the Arbitrator to resolve or adjudicate the claim which will be presumed to be final. Thereafter Arbitrator was appointed and notice was duly issued to the complainant which has not been denied by him even arbitration award Annexure R-7   was passed relevant portion whereof is as under:-

14. In the circumstances, I pass the following Award:-

a.   The respondent shall pay to the claimants a sum of Rs.5,35,214.02 together with further interest thereon at the rat eof 18% per annum from 9.2.2018 till payment and/or realization.

b. It is declared that the amount mentioned in clause (a) above is secured by a valid and subsisting hypothecation of vehicle being Zest XE bearing registration No.PB01B5368, Engine No.100A20000665655 and Chassis No.MAT624002HPA01792 in favour of the claimants and the claimants are entitled to enforce and realize the amounts due and payable by the respondent by recovering/taking possession/repossession of the said vehicle and sell the same by public auction or private treaty and appropriate the net sale proceeds thereof towards the outstanding amounts due and payable by the respondent.”

11. In our opinion, the vehicle was repossessed by the OPs as per the due process of law. However, the complainant instead of challenging the award passed by the  Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, wrongly approached this Commission. In Balmukund Joshi Vs. Suresh Rathi Securities Pvt. Ltd. Decided on 11.1.2023 the Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

“It is well settled that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a complete code and once an arbitral award is passed, it is to be challenged in the manner provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by making an application under Section 34 for setting aside of the award, within the time stipulated under Section 34(3) of the said Act. This has admittedly not been done."

Undisputedly, in the present case, the Arbitration Award had attained finality as the Complainant / Petitioner did not challenge the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  The Award has also been complied with. Accordingly, as rightly held by the State Commission, the Consumer Complaint is not maintainable

12.  Since the award has already been passed in the instant case prior to the filing of the present case, the principle of law laid down aforesaid is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, thus, the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member