In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 01 / 2011. 1) Sri Asish Kumar Dutta, 13, R.N. Avenue, Paschim Panshila, P.O. Panshila, P.S. Khardah, Dist. 24-Pgs (N). ---------- Complainant ---Versus--- 1) M/s. Todi Investors, 6th Floor, 225D, AJC Bosse Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani. 2) Sri Sarwan Kumar Agarwal, Partner, M/s. Todi Investors, 6th Floor, 225D, AJC Bosse Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani. 3) Sri Om Prakash Agarwal, Partner, M/s. Todi Investors, 6th Floor, 225D, AJC Bosse Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani. ---------- Opposite Parties Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member. Order No. 22 Dated 15-05-2013 The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is the owner of the vehicle no.WB-23A-8549, a truck of 10 wheels which he purchased with the finance of Tata Motors on the terms of paying Rs.26,400/- per month which he has been paying and as the EMI was a heavy burden on him, he searched for a second finance for payment of the balance loan of Rs.2,65,000/- to Tata Motors by further borrowing loan of the said amount and also for payment of loan at the low rate of EMI and also for further amount of Rs.1,35,000/- for other expenses and contacted the o.p. no.1 represented by o.p. no.2 i.e. Sri Sarwan Kumar Agarwal who verbally assured him to give the said loan on payment of an EMI of Rs.14,000/- only on a total amount of Rs.4 lakhs only to be paid with 35 months and as a part payment for the first phase of the loan, the o.ps. had given a cheque of Rs.2,65,000/- in the name of Tata Motors on 21.1.10 to the complainant after keeping the said vehicle in their custody at their garage in Pharpur at premises no.1, Oil Installation Road, P.S. South Port, Kolkata-88 on 19.1.10 at night as per their demand. The o.ps. stated on 21.1.10 that they would give the further part of loan of Rs.1,35,000/- after insertion of the name of the o.p. no.1 in place of Tata Motors as financer in the Blue Book of the vehicle and till then the vehicle would be detained there. The complainant was compelled to keep the vehicle there at the direction of the o.ps. and applied for insertion of the name of the o.p. no.1 in the Blue Book of the vehicle after deleting the name of the Tata Motors. The o.p. no.1 issued a cheque of Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant on 20.2.10 but did not release the vehicle valued at Rs.8,10,000/- at that time. The cheque of Rs.1,35,000/- was dishonoured and as such the complainant filed a case u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The vehicle is still standing in the garage of the o.ps. at Pharpur, Premises no.1, Oil Installation Road, Kolkata-88 and it is being illegally detained by the o.ps. Complainant had given several letters to the o.ps. to return the vehicle but in reply to those letters the o.ps. made false and manufactured statements in order to grab the vehicle worth value of Rs.8,10,000/- by paying Rs.2,65,000/-. Complainant informed of such illegal detention of the vehicle to the police authority like local police station and office of D.C. Port. The local police refused to take down his information as G.D.E. Complainant filed a case u/s 406 IPC along with an application for search warrant to receive the vehicle but the Ld. 9th J.M. Court at Alipore was pleased to take cognizance and issued summons to the accused i.e. the o.ps. In order to grab the vehicle the o.ps. maliciously filed one arbitration proceeding by appointing their yes man arbitration without any knowledge and consent of the complainant where the complainant is contesting. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint. O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Decision with reasons: We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant is the owner of the vehicle no.WB-23A-8549, a truck of 10 wheels which he purchased with the finance of Tata Motors on the terms of paying Rs.26,400/- per month which he has been paying and as the EMI was a heavy burden on him, he searched for a second finance for payment of the balance loan of Rs.2,65,000/- to Tata Motors by further borrowing loan of the said amount and also for payment of loan at the low rate of EMI and also for further amount of Rs.1,35,000/- for other expenses and contacted the o.p. no.1 represented by o.p. no.2 i.e. Sri Sarwan Kumar Agarwal who verbally assured him to give the said loan on payment of an EMI of Rs.14,000/- only on a total amount of Rs.4 lakhs only to be paid with 35 months and as a part payment for the first phase of the loan, the o.ps. had given a cheque of Rs.2,65,000/- in the name of Tata Motors on 21.1.10 to the complainant after keeping the said vehicle in their custody at their garage in Pharpur at premises no.1, Oil Installation Road, P.S. South Port, Kolkata-88 on 19.1.10 at night as per their demand. The o.ps. stated on 21.1.10 that they would give the further part of loan of Rs.1,35,000/- after insertion of the name of the o.p. no.1 in place of Tata Motors as financer in the Blue Book of the vehicle and till then the vehicle would be detained there. We further find that the complainant was compelled to keep the vehicle there at the direction of the o.ps. and applied for insertion of the name of the o.p. no.1 in the Blue Book of the vehicle after deleting the name of the Tata Motors. It is seen from the record that the o.p. no.1 issued a cheque of Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant on 20.2.10 but did not release the vehicle valued at Rs.8,10,000/- at that time. And the cheque of Rs.1,35,000/- was dishonoured and as such the complainant filed a case u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. And the vehicle is still standing in the garage of the o.ps. at Pharpur, Premises no.1, Oil Installation Road, Kolkata-88 and it is being illegally detained by the o.ps. It is also seen from the record that complainant had given several letters to the o.ps. to return the vehicle but in reply to those letters the o.ps. made false and manufactured statements in order to grab the vehicle worth value of Rs.8,10,000/- by paying Rs.2,65,000/-. Complainant informed of such illegal detention of the vehicle to the police authority like local police station and office of D.C. Port. The local police refused to take down his information as G.D.E. Complainant filed a case u/s 406 IPC along with an application for search warrant to receive the vehicle but the Ld. 9th J.M. Court at Alipore was pleased to take cognizance and issued summons to the accused i.e. the o.ps. And in order to grab the vehicle the o.ps. maliciously filed one arbitration proceeding by appointing their yes man arbitration without any knowledge and consent of the complainant where the complainant is contesting. In view of the above findings and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that the averment of the complainant in para 13 of the petition of complaint that the arbitration proceeding is going on in respect of the vehicle in question and it further appears from the record that arbitration proceeding was disposed of on 3.2.12 and appeal as against the order of the arbitrator is lying pending before of the City Civil Court and arbitration proceeding was initiated before filing of the instant complaint case. In view of the findings above we are of the views that if we entertain this matter there is a scope of conflict of decision and also may cause multiciplity of cases. That apart, we find from the record taking into account the price of the vehicle in question, lump sum compensation prayed for, repairing charges, compensation per month and outstanding demand by o.p. in prayer as exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. Rs.20 lakhs. In view of the findings above the instant case stands dismissed without cost for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost. | 
