ORDER
(Passed this on 06th May, 2017)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President
01. This complaint is heard on the point of admission and it can be disposed of at the stage of admission only.
02. It is filed against Opposite Parties i.e. O.P.No.-1- Shyambaba Motors and O.P.No.-2 L&T Finance Ltd. The O.P. No.-1 is an authorised dealer of Sonalika Tractors. The complainant purchased one tractor from the O.P. No.-1 for which the O.P. No.-2 provided financial help. However, the tractor was not registered with R.T.O. and no insurance certificate was given to him. He therefore could not use the tractor and is sustaining loss of income. The O.P. No.-2 is insisting him to pay installments. He apprehends his tractor may be seized by the O.P. No.-2. He has therefore alleged
unfair trade practise and deficiency in service of the O.P.No.-1 and has prayed to direct them to pay him compensation, loss of income, cost and register the tractor with R.T.O.
03. Along with the complaint an interim application is also filed for grant of stay to restrain the O.P.No-2 from seizing his tractor during pendency of the complaint.
04. We have heard Ld counsel for the complainant. Perused documents on record. What is important to note is that before filing this complaint the O.P.No-2 filed an arbitration proceeding against the complainant in respect of loan repayment of the said tractor. An interim award has been passed on 15/12/2016 whereby the complainant is directed to forthwith hand over possession of the said tractor to the O.P.No-2, and if fails to deliver, the O.P.No-2 is allowed to take possession, and seize the tractor from the complainant and to sell the same and appropriate the sale proceedings towards the outstanding loan amount. Thus in respect of the dispute between the complainant and O.P. No-2, arbitration proceeding is already initiated and interim award is also passed. Under such circumstances, the
Consumer Forum loses its jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Disagreeing with this view, Ld counsel submitted that in view of Section 3 of the C.P. Act, remedy under the C.P. Act is in addition to and not in derogation of provision of any law for the time being in force, the complaint is maintainable. He relied on a S.C ruling in National Seeds Corp Ltd v/s M. Madhusudan Reddy 2012 DGLS (SC) 38 (AIR 1160 (SC) 2012). We have gone through this judgment and we must say that the reliance on this ruling is misplaced. In that case there was a clause of arbitration and so it was argued that the party should have resorted to arbitration and consumer forum was not entitled to decide the complaint. This argument was rejected holding that remedy given under the C.P. Act is in addition to other remedy available under any other law and therefore it is the choice of litigant to chose either arbitration or consumer forum. There is no dispute regarding this position.
05. However, once a party approaches an arbitrator and obtains an award, interim or final, the consumer forum cannot decide the consumer complaint. Installments Supply Ltd. v/s Kangra ExiServicemen Transport Co. 2007 (1) CLT 244 (NC). One of the controversies involved in
the present complaint is that of loan repayment to the O.P.No-2, though relief’s made are different. But the controversy is related to the tractor purchased on finance given by the O.P.No-2 and the complainant has not paid loan repayments. Therefore the O.P.No-2 approached the sole arbitrator as per the clause incorporated in the contract and obtained an interim award. Though the complainant has alleged the award is not binding on him, he is required to challenge the award before appropriate authority and this forum is not the proper forum to challenge the award. Although the consumer forum, by virtue of Sec. 3 of the C.P. Act has got parallel jurisdiction, yet when the case is decided by Civil Court or D.R.T. or an Arbitrator, it remains bound by that; it cannot reopen the controversy again and the forum is bound by the orders passed by the arbitrator or Civil Court as the case may be.
06. For aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that in view of passing of interim award against the complainant the forum is now not entitled to decide the complaint. The complainant has got remedy to agitate his grievance before
the arbitrator. The complaint, therefore, does not deserve to be admitted. Hence the order.
ORDER
(01) The complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission.
(02) No order as to cost.
(03) Copy of order be given to the complainant, free of
cost.
