Orissa

Cuttak

CC/115/2016

Harekrushna Prusty - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Head,Magma Fincrop Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.115/2016

 

Harekrushna Prusty,

Village/PO:Ostapur,P.S:Mahanga,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                               … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.        State Head,

Magma Fincorp Ltd.,

At-A1,Nirmala Plaza,Forest Park,

                   Bhubaneswar,Dist-Khurda

 

2.         Branch Head,

Magma Fincorp Ltd.,

At:Sumitra Plaza,Badambadi,

                  Cuttack

 

3.        R.T.O,Chandikhol,

Distg:Jajapur.                                                                                      … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:              Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     07.09.2016 

Date of Order:   12.09.2017

 

For the complainant                    :       Mr. B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party(1 & 2).          :       Sri R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3                           :                  None.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

The case is against deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps.

1. The case in nutshell is that the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from O.P No.1 vide loan agreement No.PG/0016/R/11.000059.  The said loan was repayable in 36 E.M.Is @ Rs.21,760/- each between Augst,2012 to July,2015.  The documents such as loan sanction order, loan agreement, Deeds of Hypothecation, Demand Notices(when served), seizure order (when made) etc. were executed but copies of such documents were not given to the complainant.    The cost of the vehicle was Rs.7,60,000/-(Annexure-1).  The complainant purchased accessories worth Rs.50,000/- and also spend Rs.91,000/- towards Tax,Fitness,Insurance and down payment etc.  The vehicle was registered with R.T.O,Chandikhole vide Regd. No.OR-04H-8571.(Annexure-2).  The complainant was regular in repayment and had repaid about Rs.5,22,240/- in about 22 E.M.Is.  Due to an accident of the said vehicle the complainant failed to repay some installments.  The O.P Finance Company suddenly seized the vehicle on 14.11.2014 at Jagatpur Chhak.(Annexure-3).  The seizure was made without any prior notice.  The complainant wanted to know the cause of seizure and was told by O.P No.1 that he has defaulted in payment of his loan A/c.    Demand notice, seizure notice were not issued prior to seizure and the seizure was made forcefully.  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.Ps to release his vehicle on receipt of Rs.30,000/- towards defaulted E.M.I without any other cost, to pay compensation amounting to Rs.45,000/- for mental agony and harassment, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of social prestige, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice.  He has also prayed to direct the O.Ps to supply the copy of agreement, to direct the O.Ps for bilateral settlement with regards to contract disputes or one time settlement and also to return the vehicle or refund the cost of the vehicle in case the said vehicle is sold to any other person.
2. The O.Ps 1 & 2 vide their written brief dt.10.11.2016 has stated that the dispute between the complainant and O.Ps 1 & 2 has already been decided by the Learned Arbitrator for the O.Ps(1 & 2) and the learned Arbitrator has already awarded a sum of Rs.2,63,915/- in favour of the answering O.Ps.  Vide R.P 97 of 2012 it was decided by the Hon’ble State Commission,Odisha on 16.7.2013 that if the dispute have been decided by the Arbitrator, subsequent complaint is not maintainable.(Annexure-A). Copy of Arbitration award dt.24.02.2016 is annexed vide Annexure-B.  Hon’ble National Commission vide Revision Petition No.2363 of 2002 has also decided on 05.10.2006 as follows:- “A complaint cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum after an arbitration award is already passed.(Annexure-C).  That the complainant was financed with a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- vide contract No.PG/0016/R/11/000059 dt.01.09.2012 and was liable to repay a total sum of Rs.10,22,430/- in 47 equated monthly installments.  The complainant was not repaying the dues in time and was a chronic defaulter. Prior to sale of the vehicle the complainant was issued with pre-sale notice on 20.11.2014 and was intimated to repay the dues outstanding against him.  The O.Ps (1 & 2) waited till 23.02.2015 but the complainant did not repay the loan.  O.Ps (1 & 2) sold the vehicle to a 3^rd party namely Digbijay Das on 24.2.2015 and the same was communicated to the complainant on 11.03.2016.(Annexure-D).  This Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this case since arbitration award is already passed against the complainant.
3. We have gone through the case records in details, perused the documents/papers as filed by the complainant and as well as by O.ps 1 & 2, heard the learned advocates from both the sides at length and observed that the borrower had availed a loan from the O.P finance company but did not repay the loan installments in time and was a defaulter for which his vehicle was seized on 14.11.2014 and was also sold to a 3^rd party to realize the dues on 24.2.2015.  The matter was also placed before the arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator vide its award dt.24.2.2016 awarded a sum of Rs.2,63,915/- in favour of the O.Ps (1 & 2).  The complainant has lodged this case before this Hon’ble Forum on 07.09.2016 i.e after the learned Arbitrator has passed the award on 24.2.2016.  It was decided on 05.10.2006 vide Revision Petition No.2363 of 2002 by the Hon’ble National Commission that “A complaint cannot be decided by the Consumer Fora after an arbitration award is already passed.”    It was also decided by the Hon’ble State Commission,Odisha on 16.7.2013 vide Revision Petition No.97 of 2012 that “Even though Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 lays down that the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, when the dispute having been decided , award was made by the sole arbitrator, the subsequent C.D.Case was not maintainable.”  Hence it cannot be decided by this Hon’ble Forum.

                                                                                ORDER

                Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, the case is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 12^th day of September,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                             Member.

 

                                                                                                                                         (   Sri D.C.Barik  )

                                                                                                                                               President.

                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                          (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                                        Member(W).