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 /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 1/2010 DATED 05.01.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant N.Srinivasa Rao, <br /> S/o Narasinga Rao, <br /> M/s Chamundeshwari Transport Co., No.3514/1, 2nd Main Road, Tilak Nagar, Mysore-570021.<br /> (By Sri. Sridhar Chakke, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd., No.21, Patullos Road, <br /> Chennai-600002.<br /> <br /> 2. M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd.,<br /> Vinjay, Edifice, Second Floor, No.37, JLB Road, Chamarajapuram, <br /> Mysore-570005.<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 01.01.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 05.01.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction to the opposite parties to hand over the vehicles mentioned therein to him in the condition in which same were handed over and to furnish true and proper accounts and to pay damages of Rs.5,00,000/- per vehicle and Rs.1,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint amongst several facts, it is alleged that, the complainant availed loan from the opposite parties to purchase three lorries. The loan was to be repaid in EMI’s as per the agreement. Because of global phenomenon of recession, the complainant was unable to repay the loan. He sought repayment holiday for 12 months. On failure of opposite parties to provide repayment holiday, the complainant voluntarily left the said vehicles into the custody of the opposite parties and requested to put the same for sale to recover the arrears. The opposite parties without knowledge of the complainant sold the vehicles on whimsical prices. Also, the opposite parties issued notice to the complainant regarding initiation of arbitration proceedings. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint and the reliefs sought. We heard the learned advocate for the complainant regarding admissibility and maintainability of the complaint and also perused the entire records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider whether the present complaint is maintainable?<br /> <br /> 5. For the following reasons, our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- In the complaint, the complainant has admitted and stated that, he was unable to pay the EMI’s to the opposite parties towards repayment of the loan borrowed to purchase the vehicles in question.<br /> <br /> 7. The first prayer of the complainant is, to direct the opposite parties to hand over custody of the vehicles number of which are mentioned. At the end of paragraph of 2 of the complaint, it is stated that “……….. the opposite parties without the knowledge of the complainant, sold the vehicles on whimsical prices………….”. Hence, even according to the complainant as alleged in the complaint, the opposite parties have sold the vehicles. When already opposite parties have sold the vehicles, the reliefs noted cannot be granted.<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. Next prayer is, to direct the opposite parties to furnish true and proper accounts to the complainant enabling him to repay the loan. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that, the opposite parties have informed regarding initiation of arbitration proceedings. Copy of notice issued by the advocate and also the fact that the proceedings are pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicator at Madras at A.No.5438-09 and prohibitory order copy are on record. Hence, it is clear that already Hon’ble High Court has seized the dispute in the said arbitration proceedings.<br /> <br /> <br /> 9. For the reasons noted above, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable and hence, there is no question of granting other reliefs of damages and compensation. Accordingly, we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to the Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 5th January 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />