ORDERS ON ADMISSION

The facts leading to this order in brief is as under:-

1. The complainant filed the complaint under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 to direct the OP to ay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation alleging that the complainant made the final payment to the OP on 10.11.2005.  But, complainant received a legal notice dated 14^th August 2020 from the OP claiming Rs.2,64,714.90 with interest at 18% p.a. referring Arbitral Tribunal Judgement dated 14.04.2012.  The act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service.  He has received another notice dated 10.12.2021 from the OP claiming Rs.2,64,714/- with interest at 18% p.a.  Despite settlement of all the dues, OP wrongly claims dues to the tune of Rs.2,64,714/-.
2. The counsel for the complainant placing the reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2019 (2) SCC 751 and that complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Commission.
3. At this stage, advocate for complainant also files written submission with judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd., Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal dated 16.02.2022.  Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also referred decisions in Emmar MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh.  This case also in respect of Arbitration Clause.  In this decision, there is no reference about passing of Arbitration award.  Therefore, both decisions are not applicable to the present case on hand, wherein complainant admits passing of arbitral award in the year 2012.
4. We carefully perused the facts and ratio involved in the above decisions.  In the above reported decision, there was an agreement between the parties for referring the matter for Arbitration.  In the reported case, no Arbitration award has been passed.  But, complainant has admitted in the complaint and as well as refers notices of the OP dated 14.08.2020, 28.08.2020 and 14^th December, 2020.  Wherein it has been referred that the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal of Ms.Rekha Gupta passed an award dated 14.04.2012 for Rs.2,64,714.90 with interest at 18% p.a.  In the 2^nd letter dated 28.08.2020 the claim made for Rs.2,64,714.04.  However in the last letter dated 14.12.2020 reference has been made about Arbitral award dated 14.04.2012 for payment of Rs.2,64,714.90 along with interest at 18% p.a.
5. In the present case on hand, already there is an Arbitral Award, we are of the considered opinion that when there is an Arbitral Award, this Commission cannot sit over the Arbitral award and entertained the complaint.  Time and again, different Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions categorically held that when the award passed before filing the complaint, which is binding on the parties, complaint before Forum/Commission is not sustainable. It is suffice to refer the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter between Instalment Supply Ltd., Vs. Kangra Ex-serviceman Transport Co. and another reported in 2007 CTJ 404 (CP) (NCDRC). The said decision is also referred by Hon’ble State Commission in Union Territory Chandigarh in Trilok Chanal Vs. M/s Bansal Credit dated 18.12.2018.
6. In view of the award passed in the present case, the present complaint is not tenable.  We proceed to pass the order.
   6698606.  

1. The complaint is dismissed as not tenable.
2. Furnish the order copy to the complainant with extra pleadings.