Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/199/2018

Tejvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Tahaf Bains

27 Sep 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/199/2018
Date of Institution	:	02/05/2018
Date of Decision	:	27/09/2019

 

Tejvir Singh s/o Paramvir Singh, resident of Village Swara, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar 140307.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is a Finance Company constituted and duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its regional office at SCO No.16-17, Second Floor Sector 34-A, Chandigarh and one of its branch at SCO No.101-102, First Floor, Phase 11, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Company Secretary/Authorised Signatory.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Tahaf Bains, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Munish Kumar, Counsel for OP

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the allegations are, per agreement dated 16.1.2013 entered into inter se parties, complainant had raised a loan of Rs.9,70,000/- from the OP for purchase of vehicle Toyota Innova 2.5G (E3).  This was to be discharged in 60 equated monthly installments. Vehicle was hypothecated with OP.  Case is, installments were being paid regularly, but, the OP repossessed the vehicle which is illegal in the eyes of law.  It is also the case, arbitrator was appointed who passed the award on 11.5.2015 before the institution of the present consumer complaint for Rs.11,87,774/- in favour of the OP and against the complainant.  His further case is, action of the OP was arbitrary which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to pay Rs.13,67,820/- inclusive of value of the car, interest, compensation and cost of litigation.
2.         OP contested the consumer complaint and filed the written reply.  It is the case, there was no deficiency in service, arbitrator was appointed which had passed the award in favour of the OP, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant consumer complaint. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated though it is admitted, award was passed in favour of the OP and against the complainant before the institution of the present consumer complaint.  It is also the case, civil suit was also preferred with regard to the same subject matter which was dismissed, but, the present consumer complaint is additional remedy, therefore, this consumer complaint is maintainable.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.         Per averments made in the consumer complaint, it is the admitted case arbitrator was appointed and he had passed the award of Rs.11,87,770/- on 11.5.2015 in favour of the OP and against the complainant. It is on same subject matter.
7.         The OP in their written reply had also contended, in addition to the award of the arbitrator complainant had filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Mohali which was dismissed vide judgment/decree dated 5.3.2018.  These facts are also admitted in the rejoinder filed by the complainant.
8.         Per record, the award was passed by the Arbitrator in the year 2015 before the institution of the present consumer complaint on 2.5.2018. Not only this, the civil suit preferred was also dismissed. Per pleadings and documents produced, it is also the admitted case, execution proceedings were launched for the recovery of the amount from the complainant by the OP before the learned District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 2.12.2017.
9.         It is also admitted case, against ex-parte award preferred, complainant had filed objection petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is pending before the learned District Judge concerned.
10.         In case we entertain this consumer complaint or examine it on merits, it would mean this Forum is entertaining an appeal against the award passed by the arbitrator as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mohali and certainly we cannot sit as a court of appeal against the award of arbitrator or learned Civil Judge, Mohali. Remedies available with the complainant is either to file objections before the learned principal District Judge, Mohali against the ex-parte award and further an appeal before the learned District Judge, against the judgment and decree vide which the suit was dismissed on the same subject matter by the learned Civil Judge, Mohali.  Entertaining of this consumer complaint would create a judicial indiscipline as we are not possessed with the powers to overrule the award for which there is a separate remedy which has been availed of or to nullify the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in a regular civil suit preferred in which evidence was recorded and on merits the suit was dismissed. Both are decided matters and not even pending matters before the learned arbitrator or the civil court.
11.         In case titled M/s Shree Jagannath Constructions Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Private Limited, 2001 (1) CRP 1 it was observed if, in respect of the same subject matter, proceedings before the Civil Forum had been instituted prior to the institution of the proceedings before the Fora constituted under the Act and such proceedings are pending, the Fora constituted under the Act definitely gets ousted of jurisdiction. Even in the aforesaid case, matter was pending before the civil court prior to the institution of the proceedings before the District Forum even then the jurisdiction of the Forum was held gets ousted, while in the present case, the final award/decree has been passed by the arbitrator as well as the learned Civil Judge.  Therefore, we would not examine this consumer complaint on merits. Since the other remedies availed of by the complainant, therefore, additional remedy is not entertainable to nullify the award as well as the judgment and decree.
12.         The learned counsel for the complainant has relied on Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur & Ors., 2007 AIR (SC) 1349, ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Dr. Abhay Singh Kharari & Anr., 2009 (46) RCR (Civil) 158; ICICI Bank Limited Vs. S. Kashmir Singh, 2009 (2) CPC 345; Kamlesh Singh Vs. Magma Leasing Limited & Anr., 2010 (61) RCR (Civil) 962 etc. However, these pertains to the advancement of the loan and bank taking possession of the vehicle.  These precedents nowhere authorise the District Forum to entertain an appeal against the award of the arbitrator as well as the judgment and decree of the civil court. Our jurisdiction stood ousted.
13.         In view of the above discussion, the consumer complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
27/09/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President