ORAL

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                              UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                 APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2018

        (Against the judgment/order dated 21-03-2017 in Complaint Case

                           No.159/2016 of the District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur)

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited

Having its office 2^nd Floor, Sadhana House

Near Mahindra Tower, 570 P.B. Road

Varli, Mumbai-400018 Maharastra

Through there authorized signatory 

                                                                                        ...Appellant

                                                     Vs.

Sabhajeet, S/o Shri Ghinhu

R/o Bariyarepur, Bbatauli

Tehsil Badlapur, District Varanasi

                                                                                      ...Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Appellant                :  Mr. A K Srivastava, Advocate.

For the Respondent             :  

Dated : 25-06-2019

                                            JUDGMENT

MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before this State Commission against the judgment and order dated 21-03-2017 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur in Complaint Case No. 159/2016 Sabhajeet V/s M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and passed order in Hindi which is extracted below.

          ‘’ परिवादी सभाजीत का परिवाद संख्‍या 159/2016 एकपक्षीय रूप में विपक्षी के विरूद्ध स्‍वीकार किया जाता है तथा विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि परिवादी के स्‍वराज ट्रैक्‍टर जिसका रजिस्‍ट्रेशन नम्‍बर यू0पी062ए एम 7697 को किसी भी तरह से परिवादी को अभिरक्षा से न खीचे और यदि परिवादी के ऊपर कोई ओवर ड्यू धनराशि नियमानुसार निकले तो उसे परिवादी से वसूल करे तथा हर्जा-खर्चा में 2000रू0 वाद व्‍यय भी एक माह के अन्‍दर परिवादी को अदा करे।“

:2:

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum opposite party of complaint  has filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel Mr A K Srivazstava appeared for appellant.

None appeared for respondent despite sufficient service of notice.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the dispute was referred to arbitrator in terms of loan agreement and the arbitration proceeding was pending at the time of filing of complaint. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. As such the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction and against law.

It is further contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the award has been passed by arbitrator and the arbitrator has decided that the outstanding balance payable to appellant by respondent on 26-08-2016 is Rs.3,32,049/-.

I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant.

Considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant the appeal is allowed partially and the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is modified to the extent that the appellant Finance Company shall not repossess the vehicle in question otherwise than in due course of law. The appellant is at liberty to initiate proceeding for recovery of balance amount of loan in terms of award given by arbitrator and to take further action in accordance with law for repossessing the vehicle in question. Impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum stands modified accordingly.

In appeal parties shall bear their own costs.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.

                                                                ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

          Pnt.