Haryana

Ambala

CC/466/2016

Jagjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Yashik Finance Co - Opp.Party(s)

Sushil Kumar

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 466 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 23.12.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 19.01.2018

 

 

Jagjit Singh son of Harnam Singh, VPO Duliani, Tehsil Barara District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

Vs.

 

M/s Yashik Finance Company, now at A.P.Regency, 3, Police Line Road,  Ambala City through its proprietor Pawan Aggarwal, R/o House No. 376, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

 ….….Opposite Party.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

 

Present:       Sh. Sushil Kumar, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Ankush Gupta, counsel  for OP.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant purchased old Truck bearing registration No. HR58A-0040 from Karnail Singh son of Pritam Singh resident of Village  Nawarsi, District Kurukshetra in the year Feb.2011 and took financial help from the OP to the tune of Rs. 4,77,000/- and the total amount along with interest was to be paid as Rs. 6,02,500/-which was to be paid in installments. Accordingly, the complainant started paying the instalments and paid 16 instalments totaling Rs. 2,82,200/-. In the meanwhile, the complainant asked  the OP to grant permission  to get the vehicle transferred in his name but the OP kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and did not do the needful. When the OP did not grant  permission to get the vehicle transferred in his name, the complainant stopped paying  instalment  after 13.03.2013 and asked the OP unless and until the permission to get the vehicle transferred in the name of the complainant is given, the  complainant is not going to pay any instalment. The OP asked the complainant to get the papers prepared for getting the vehicle re-financed from the OP and in that event only, permission to transfer the vehicle can be granted. Accordingly,  on the asking of the OP, the said  vehicle was got refinanced from the OP on 13.08.2013, which was shown as financed  for Rs 4,40,000/- and not ‘re-financed’ and for this amount 29 instalments were to be paid and the interest was Rs. 1,05,200/- and the total amount Rs. 5,45,200/-. Subsequent thereto, the complainant  paid an amount of Rs. 80,000/- in instalments but still then the permission to get  the vehicle transferred  the registration certificate  in the name of the complainant  was not granted and the vehicle stands in the name of the previous  owner. And to this untoward attitude of the OP of not granting permission for transfer the complainant stopped paying instalment.

As the complainant remained ill and remained admitted in MM Hospital, Mullana from 11.4.2014 o 18.4.2014 where operation of head was conducted and the taking undue advantage of the illness of the complainant, took away the vehicle of the complainant from his shop forcibly and illegally in the absence of the complainant. When the complainant  sked the OP to give/release his vehicle to him but he put off the matter on one pretext or the other and on 11.02.2015 it was told by the OP that the vehicle has already been sold away to some third party to the detriment of the complainant. As the act and conduct of the OP was quit illegal, the complainant moved an application on 19.04.2014 in the police station, Mullana, but police did not take any action against the OP. At the time of taking financial assistance, the OP took many cheques of complainant as security. OP misused cheque No. 040274 filing the amount as Rs. 4,55,000/- and procured report of  dishonor and filed complaint under section 138  of the negotiable instruments Act in the court. In the said case, the complainant was acquitted by the court of JMIC, Ambala. The OP got an arbitration award passed against the complainant in the absence of the him.

2.               On notice OP appeared and filed an application U/s 8 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 for reference of the dispute to arbitration and reply filed. However, OP has filed the copy of the award passed by Arbitrator dated 23.02.2015 which was decided by the Arbitrator between the parties and the matter in controversy in the present complaint as well as the matter before the arbitrator was same. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable.

3.                We have gone through the arbitration award which was passed by Arbitrator on 23.02.2015. It is clear from the arbitration award that the arbitrator has sent the notice to the complainant  reference for arbitration as per Hypothecation Agreement dated 13.08.2013 in respect of the claim for Rs. 5,45,200/-  which was given by the M/s Yashik Finance Company to the Arbitrator against the complainant but the complainant has not contested the matter before the Arbitrator and he was proceeded ex parte on 20.05.2015 as mentioned in the arbitration award. It is also clear that the present complaint has been filed on 23.12.2016 after passing the arbitration award dated 23.02.2015. The OP has also drawn the our attention toward the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Instalment  Supply Ltd vs. Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport Co. and another, RP No.2363 of 2002. D/d.5.10.2006 (CPJ 2007(1) Page 34) has categorically given the findings that if any arbitration award passed before complaint which is binding between the parties, Fora below should not have passed an order overlooking the award. 

4.                In view of the above discussion we are confirmed view that present complaint is not maintainable because the present case has been filed after passing the award which is abuse of process of law and complainant wants to take the benefit of benevolent provision of the Consumer Protection Act under the garb of this complaint which cannot be allowed. The abovesaid judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi is fully applicable in the present case. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with costs Rs. 5000/-. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on :19.01.2018    

 

                                 

                                                                                               

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)      (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)           (D.N. ARORA)

Member                                             Member                                 President