West Bengal

Bankura

CC/50/2019

Suraj Malakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jayanta Kumar Mukharjee

18 Dec 2023

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 50/2019

          Date of Filing:   01/11/2019

                                                    

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

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

 

Complainant  

Suraj Malakar, S/O Manik Malakar of Nutanchati, Sarada Pally, Bankura, P.O., P.S. & District Bankura, Pin - 722101.

Opposite Party 

1.R.H. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Heavy More, Bikna, Bardhaman – Bankura Road, Bankura – 722155 (W.B.).

2.Tata Motors Finance Ltd., 10^th Floor, 106 A & B Maker Chambers III, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

 

Order No.30

Dated:18-12-2023

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

Prayer for adjournment by the O.P. is considered but rejected.

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

The Complainant’s case is that he purchased one four wheeler commercial vehicle No. being WB 67B 4829 from O.P. No.1 financed by O.P. No.2 vide Agreement No.5002491982, dated:29/12/2017 but the Complainant having defaulted in payment of loan said vehicle has been repossessed by the O.P. No.2/Financer. The Complainant has approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that an Arbitration award has been passed in the matter on 20/03/2019 in Arbitration Proceeding No.CH-1/TMFL/EAST/ARB/87/2019 whereby the Complainant has been directed to pay to the O.P. No.2 Rs.3,81,560/- with further direction to give the possession of the vehicle in question. Hence the instant case is liable to be dismissed in limine.                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                                        Contd……p/2

                                                                                                         Page: 2

-: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents on both sides the Commission finds that prior to the filing of the instant case on 01/11/2019 an Arbitral Award has already been passed on 20/03/2019 directing repossession of the vehicle in question by O.P. / Financer and as such the Complainant has no locus standi to pray for the same relief before this Commission. It is now a well settled proposition of law that once an Arbitral Award has been passed by the competent authority this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same matter which has already been decided by the Ld. Arbitrator otherwise it will give rise to conflict of decision which is not desirable and permissible under the law as provided in Section-100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The case therefore fails.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

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

 

 ____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER