DATE OF FILING : 23.9.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  27th  day of   April,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.264/2016

Between

Complainant       :    Ratheesh, S/o. Venu,

Thalavancheril House,    

Mathaippara, Idukki.  

Now residing at

Thalavancheril House,   

Vakathanam P.O., Kottayam.

  (By Adv:  Sijimon K. Augustine)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  Rajesh,

       Manager,

       Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

       2nd Floor, Kanakkalil Building,

       Edassery Junction, 

       New Bus Stand Road, Kattappana,

       Idukki. 

  2.  The General Manager,

       Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

       101-105, 1st Floor, B Wing,

       Shiv Chamber, Sector – 11,

       C.B.D., Belpur, Navi Mumbai,

       Pin :  400 614.

      (Both by Adv: Gem Korason)

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant in brief is :

 

The complainant availed loan from opposite party for his vehicle in the month of February 2011.  The loan amount was Rs.2,26,859/- and is to be repaid with 48 instalments at the rate of Rs.7604/- per month.  Due to some unexpected circumstances, complainant failed to remit the EMI and hence he surrendered the vehicle in the month of May 2014 before the opposite party.   At that time,  opposite  party  calculated  the  loan  due  as

     (cont....2)

-  2  -

Rs.1,50,000/- and vehicle is valued Rs.1,46,000/- and the opposite party agreed that they will write off the balance Rs.4000/-.  Thus the entire transaction with opposite party and the complainant was came to an end.  The matter being so, in the month of April, 2015, opposite party approached the complainant and demanded a very huge amount as loan dues.   Against this, the complainant issued a legal notice to opposite party on 1.8.2016 demanding to return his documents which he was entrusted them at the time of availing the loan.  Eventhough the opposite party accepted the notice, they had not reacted.  Against this, complainant filed this petition alleging deficiency in service against opposite party and for directing them to return all the documents which was entrusted by the complainant to them and also direct them to pay cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version denying the averments in the complaint and also challenging the maintainability of the complaint as a primary issue.  In their version, opposite party contended that, as per the loan agreement, an amount of Rs.3,66,443/- have to be repaid by the complainant by total 36 instalments.  Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.2,26,859/- is the loan advanced and Rs.1,39,584/- is the interest.  The contrary contention is false.  In addition to this, the complainant availed working capital loan of Rs.6696/- on 15.4.2011, Rs.15000/- on 20.12.2011, Rs.8550/- on 13.3.2012, Rs.14019/- on 16.4.2012, Rs.14824/- on 20.11.2012 and Rs.16669/- on 3.3.2014.

 

The opposite party further contended that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in repaying the monthly instalments from the beginning of the loan itself and the matter was forwarded to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator passed an award in this matter, that is, on 12.1.2016, in respect to the matter in issue between the complainant and the opposite party, before approaching the complainant in this Forum and hence the present complaint is not maintainable in law.

 

Hence the matter of maintainability heard in detail.  To substantiate the version, opposite party filed copy of Arbitration Award of the matter in issue.  By perusing the Arbitration Award in A.C. No.133/2015, dated 12.1.2016, it is seen that the award is passed in this matter by the arbitrator on 12.1.2016.  On perusal of the complaint, it is seen that it is filed on 25.9.2016, that is, after a long gap of arbitration award.       (cont....3)

-  3  -

Hence as per the judgement of the National Commission in Jagadish Kainthala Vs. Bajaj Alliance Company and another, (R.P. No.1034 of 2016) (Reported in 2016 CPJ Vol. IV, page 35), the Hon'ble National Commission stated that, “the dispute stands adjudicated by the Arbitrator and Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to sit in judgement over the award of Arbitrator”.  The remedy open to the appellant is by way of challenging award, as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

 

Under the above circumstances, the Forum finds that, the complaint is not maintainable herein and hence dismissed.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of April, 2018

 

               Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

       Sd/- 

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

            SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT