West Bengal

Bankura

CC/68/2016

Naru Ruidas - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.H Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANKURA

Consumer  Complaint  No. 68/2016

Date of Filing : 01.09.2016

Before:

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee                          Ld. Member. 

3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.

 

For the Complainant: Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

For the O.P. Ld Advocate Gobinda N. Ghosal

Complainant                                                                                                          

Naru Ruidas, S/o Late Jahar Ruidas, Nirmal Danga, Bankura

Opposite Party  

1.R.H. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., at Bikna, Heavy More, Bankura 

2.Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT  

Order No.32                                                                                   

Dt. 28-03-2023

Both parties filed hazira through advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The complainant’s case is that he purchased Vehicle being ACE-Pick up vehicle bearing Registration No.WB67A/3399, Engine No.275IDI06JXYSK4132 & Chasis No.MAT445056CZJ85009 from O.P. No.1 under a Hypothecation agreement No. being 5001078260, dt.31-10-2012 whereby the complainant availed loan of Rs.2,61,000/- from the Finance Co./O.P.No.2 but the complainant is alleged to have committed default in the payment of loan amount. Meanwhile the vehicle was repossessed by O.P. 2 on 17-06-2016. The complainant already paid initial Hire charges of Rs.84,603/- together with Rs.11,326.80 but the complainant was not furnished with the Statement of account and he is quite in the dark as to the outstanding dues. At this juncture he received a letter dt.24-06-2016 from O.P.2 with a demand of Rs.33,110/-.

                                                                                                                                                                                              Contd……p/2

Page: 2

The complainant has therefore approached this Commission challenging the letter dt.24-06-2016 and the act of repossession of the vehicle by O.P.2 on 17-06-2016 and for other reliefs.

The O.P.2 / Finance Company contested the case by filing a written version denying all the material allegations in the complaint contending inter alia that O.P.2 has already got an arbitral award against the complainant Number being TMFL/120069, dt.07-12-2016 for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs.1,79,157.08 with interest and to take possession of the vehicle for non-payment of the arbitral award and to adjust the same against the sale proceeds of the vehicle and returning the balance to the complainant if any. So the O.P. prayed for dismissal of the case on this ground.

-:Decision with reasons:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, materials on record and contention and submission on both sides the Commission finds that the vehicle in question has already been repossessed by the O.P. in terms of the Hire purchase agreement and an arbitral award has already been passed Ex-parte settling the dispute between the parties by directing the complainant to pay to the O.P.2 a sum of Rs.1,79,157.08 together with interest with further direction to realize the said amount by taking possession of the vehicle and selling the same by public auction and adjust the sale proceeds towards outstanding amount and returning the balance if any to the complainant.

Neither party has brought on record in their pleadings that O.P.2 sent an Advocate’s letter dated: 09-05-2016 calling upon the complainant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,79,157.08 in default the matter shall be referred to the Arbitrator. The complainant having failed to comply with the said Advocate’s letter the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator who by the aforesaid order dt.07-12-2016 passed the arbitral award as mentioned above.

The instant complaint case has been filed by the complainant on 07-09-2016 and thereafter the above mentioned arbitral award was passed Ex-parte against the complainant during the pendency of this case.

                                                                                                                                                                                           Contd……p/3

Page: 3

It is now well settled that Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on any issue between the complainant and the Finance Company even if there is an Arbitration clause in the Agreement. So initiation of the instant proceeding before this Commission is not barred by any law but the fact is that before the disposal of this complaint case an Arbitral award has been passed on 07-12-2016 in terms of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the question now naturally arises as to whether on the face of the Arbitral award this Commission can proceed further to decide the same issue which has already been decided in the Arbitration proceedings.

Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant has however contended that his client will be highly prejudiced if he is non-suited in this case in consideration of the Arbitral award which has been passed Ex-parte without taking into consideration his case. On the other hand Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Finance Company has vigorously argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to proceed with this case further and take an independent view in ignorance of that Arbitral award.

It is no doubt true that Arbitration proceeding is a legal process undertaken under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section-5 of the said Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.

Section 35 of the said Act says that an arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively. It is also provided in Section 36 of the said Act that an arbitral award will be executed as if it is a decree passed by the Civil court.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Contd……p/4

Page: 4

Taking into consideration of all the legal provisions mentioned above one thing is clear that other authority be it the Consumer Commission or any other Judicial authority shall not intervene with the proceedings and final order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Thus this Commission has concurrent jurisdiction to hear and decide the same issue but once such issue is finally heard and decided by an independent authority constituted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act this Commission cannot have further jurisdiction to proceed with the same by taking a different view as it will give rise to a conflict of decision which is not permissible and desirable under the law.

Accordingly the Commission is of the view that in view of the aforesaid Arbitral award this Commission has no jurisdiction to pass any order in this case on the same issue for the reasons stated above. Only remedy which lies with the complainant is to approach the competent Civil Court for setting aside the Arbitral award in accordance with law.

Hence it is ordered…..

That the case be and the same is dismissed as being not maintainable in law but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.  

 

  __________________                 ________________               ________________

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT        HON’BLE    MEMBER      HON’BLE    MEMBER