Delhi

New Delhi

CC/555/2017

Babban Giri - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. L&T Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.555/2017                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

                Sh. Babban Giri,

                S/o  Sh. Ram Kripal Giri,

                 R/o C-63/3, Block-C,

                Nangli Vihar Extn.,  Delhi-43.

           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.     Gurjeet Singh(Branch Manager)

 

2.      Satish Sharma,

Manager of M/s L&T Finance Ltd.,

At 5^th-6^th Floor, DCM Building,

Bara Khamba Road, Connaught Place,

New Delhi.

Opposite Parties.

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that   the complainant purchased  a vehicle bearing No.DL-IYC-8868 make TATA in March, 2012 and he availed the loan of Rs.4 lacs for finance of above said vehicle from the L&T Finance Ltd. i.e. OP-2.   The complainant had paid loan amount approx. Of Rs.3,50,000/- to OP-2 but due to the some financial crises, he could not pay 2-3 installments on time and later on he also paid the same instalments  in cash.  On  12.12.2013, OP-2 along with some bouncers entered into the complainant’s house, forcibly snatched the key of the vehicle in question  and also obtained his signatures on some blank papers. The forcibly snatched the vehicle along with its original documents.  They also took cheque book and passbook of complainant and also took a sum of Rs.33,000/-.  These people did not issue any receipt against the aforesaid amount of Rs.33,000/-.  Thereafter, the complainant  visited the office of OPs and requested to return the vehicle in question. In response, OP-1 threatened  him and stated that the aforesaid vehicle had been disposed off.  This act of OPs are illegal, as the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle in question and paid the loan amount approx. of Rs.3.5 lacs.  The complainant reported the matter to the local police on several occasions, he also sent a written complaint dt. 21.1.2014 to the concerned SHO, P.S. Ranhola, DCP Rajpouri Garden but no action was taken against the OPs. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

2.     Consequent upon the receipt of complaint notice was sent to the OPs.  On 10.8.2018, Counsel for OP appeared and filed MOA, he is directed to file w.s. on 26.10.18. On 26.10.18  none appeared on behalf of OPs nor any W.S. filed, therefore, they were ordered  to be proceeded ex-parte. 

3.     Complainant has placed on record the copies of the receipts, copy of Retail Invoice, copy of policy schedule, copies of blank cheques of Bank of India, copy of loan agreement and copy of Statement of account of OPs in support of his case.

4.     We have heard arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.         The complainant in its complaint at Para-14 himself had made the averment that after snatching the vehicle from them on 12.12.2013, the OP set up an Arbitral Tribunal at Mumbai and got passed an ex-parte award dt. 2.6.2014 against the complainant for recovery of the alleged due amount of Rs.1,96,137/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 16.1.2014. 

6.     In the present complainant, OPs has already procured an award of arbitration dated 2.6.2014 against the complainant, hence,  we are of the view that “the dispute stands adjudicated by the arbitrator and consumer forum cannot re-determine the issue, because Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the awards of arbitrators.  The remedy, open to the complainant, is by way of challenging the award, as per provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”    It is settled Law that the Consumer Fora cannot question the award. It has no power to set aside the award or decree passed by the Civil Court. If this power is given to the Consumer Fora, this will lead to contradictory judgments. (Reliance is placed upon the judgement of hon’ble National Commission titled as Jagdish Kainthla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Company IV (2016) CPJ 35(NC)) decided on 16.05.2016.

7.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that  the present case cannot be entertained by this Forum  after an  award already passed. We find not merits in the present case, same is hereby dismissed.

 

A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 21/01/2020.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                        (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

                             MEMBER                                                         MEMBER