KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 27/2021

ORDER DATED: 26.07.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 100/2021 of CDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONERS:

1. Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company, Athikari Acropolis, 1^st Floor, S 113, S114, Near SCDCC Bank, Opp: Surathkal Post Office, Mangalore.

2. The Managing Director, Shriram Transport Finance Co., Door No. 101-105, 1^st Floor, B Wing, Shiv Chambers, Sector II, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai, represented by Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company, Kasaragod.

3. Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company, 2^nd Floor, Aramana Arcade, Bank Road, Kasaragod.

                    (By Adv. Narayan R.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

T. Pramod, S/o Manukuttan, Door No. 1/20, Umesh Sadan House, Kana Surathkal Post, Mangalore-575 014.

                                (By Adv. Pallichal S. Aswakumar)

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the opposite parties in C.C. No.100/2021 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (will be referred as District Commission) u/s 47(1) b of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2020 against the order dated 09.11.2021 in I.A. No.261/2021.

2.  On 09.11.2021 the District Commission had passed an order restraining the petitioner herein from selling the vehicle bearing Reg. No KA-29-9251.  The complainant who is the registered owner of that vehicle had availed vehicle loan from the opposite parties for Rs. 3,50,000/- on the basis of an agreement to repay the amount in 24 equal monthly instalments covering the period from 20.01.2020  to 20.12.2021.  The complainant was anticipating forceful seizure of the vehicle by the opposite parties by unlawful means.  Hence the complaint.

3.  After the filing of the complaint the opposite parties had seized the vehicle and thereafter the complainant filed I.A.No 261/2021 and obtained an order restraining the opposite parties from selling the vehicle.  Aggrieved by the above order this revision has been filed.

4.  According to the petitioners C.C. No. 100/2021 was originally posted to 24.11.2021.  On 09.112021 the case was advanced on application with I.A.No.261/2021 and posted to 16.11.2021.  But the District Commission passed the impugned order on 09.11.2021 without hearing the revision petitioners and without giving them the chance for filing objections.  The District Commission ought not have passed the order since an arbitral order was passed by the arbitrator in view of the dictum in “Instalment Supply Ltd V Kangra Ex servicemen Transport  Company reported in 1(2007)CPJ 345(NC)”.

5.  After admitting the revision, notice was issued to the respondent who appeared through counsel, but later the respondent and his lawyer remained absent.

6.  Heard the counsel for the petitioners.  The records received from the District Commission were perused.  The main grievance of the petitioner is that the District Commission had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on the reason that Arbitration proceedings had already begun and the arbitrator had already passed an order for repossessing the vehicle.  The learned counsel would place reliance upon an order of the National Commission reported in 1(2007) CPJ 34 NC.  The National Commission had ruled that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction on a matter if an award has already been passed by the arbitrator.  But this precedent is not helpful for the petitioners on the reason that no arbitral award has been passed.  The bar applies to cases where an arbitral award has been passed.  The materials on record would show that the complaint was filed on 23.06.2021 and thereafter the Arbitrator had passed order on 08.09.2021 for repossession of the vehicle.  So the order of the National Commission cited by the petitioners is not applicable in this matter.  The order passed by the District Commission is intended to preserve the subject matter till the disposal of the case.  There is no error in the order passed by the District Commission which would warrant interference.  So the revision fails.

7.  Before concluding the matter it is found expedient in the interest of justice to direct the District commission to consider the contention raised by the revision petitioners regarding the maintainability of the complaint.

     In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER                          

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb