DATE OF FILING: 16.09.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.201/2011

Between

Complainant : Sindhu D/o Kunjan,

Puthenpurackal House,

Prakash P.O,

Udayagiri,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: M.M.Lissy)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Shriram City Union Finance Limited,

Ist Floor, Manikkath Cross Road,

Ravipuram,

Ernakulam.

2. Shriram City Union Finance Limited,

Ist Floor, Capital Building,

Chennattumattom Junction,

Kattappana P.O,

Idukki District.

(Both by Adv: V.T.Rejimon)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant purchased a two wheeler TVS Scooty Pep motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-06-D-6700 after availing a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the opposite parties. The price of the vehicle was Rs.33,335/-. The complainant agreed to repay the loan amount together with interest in 36 monthly instalments of Rs.1,182/- each without default commencing from 7.02.2007 as per the loan agreement. At the time of purchase the complainant had deposited Rs.9,000/- before the Ist opposite party and she was paying the instalments promptly after the same. But unfortunately the husband of the complainant expired, so that she was not in a position to repay the balance amount. The matter was informed to the Ist opposite party and as per the direction of the Ist opposite party the vehicle was surrendered on 26.12.2008 before the 2^nd opposite party and closed the loan transaction. A receipt for the same was also issued on 26.12.2008 by one Mr.Pratheesh Areeckal, who was the staff of the 2^nd opposite party. On 2.07.2010 the complainant received a document, which is an arbitration award. As per the award the opposite party is entitled to realise an amount of Rs.32,335/- with overdue compensation @ 18% per annum

(cont...2)

- 2 -

from 30.03.2010 from the complainant. The opposite party also allowed to realise a cost of Rs.750/- from the complainant. But nothing was informed to the complainant about the case pending before the arbitrator. So the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party's office regarding the same. But the staff of the 2nd opposite party Mr.Girish issued another surrender letter dated 16.09.2009 to the complainant. The complainant surrendered the vehicle on 26.12.2008. After surrendering the vehicle and closing the loan transaction, the opposite party filed an arbitration case against the complainant without revealing the fact and it is a deficiency from the part of the opposite parties. So this petition is filed.

2. The opposite party filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case. As per the opposite party, the complainant is further barred from filing this petition because an arbitration award is already passed against the complainant as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. In order to avoid the consequences of the arbitration award this petition is filed by the complainant by suppressing the material facts. The loan was not closed at any point of time by the complainant. The complainant had defaulted 20 instalments and cheques towards such 20 EMIs were dishonoured. The arbitrator had issued necessary notice before initiating arbitration proceedings and sufficient chances were given to the complainant for the proceedings. On 16.09.2009 the complainant surrendered the vehicle and it was sold out by the opposite party for an available best price. Evenafter deducting the sale price of the vehicle, Rs.44,308/- is due from the complainant as on 13.10.2011.

3. The opposite parties produced copy of the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 2^nd day of June, 2010. In the 5^th paragraph of that award it is stated that

“On 30.03.2010, registered notice with acknowledgement due was issued by the Arbitral Tribunal to the respondent along with a true copy of the claim statement, requesting to appear at the office of the Arbitrator, on 19.04.2010 duly appointed counsel or representative, who can act on his behalf and state/file objection/counter if any, otherwise the Arbitral Tribunal may proceed with the claim exparte.

In paragraph 6 of the award, it is stated that

“On 19.04.2010 notice not returned. So order to await. On 5.05.2010 AD returned served. Respondent absent. Hence she is set exparte and posted for exparte evidence”.

So it is absolutely clear from the copy of the award produced by the opposite party that notice was duly served to the complainant before an exparte order was passed by the Arbitrator. So we think that once the matter is already adjudicated by a legal authority, it is not proper to interfere the same and so that the petition is not maintainable.

(cont....3)

- 3 -

Hence the petition dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of November, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX : Nil.