4). Ordered dated 22.01.2015.

The case record is put up today as it is fixed for hearing and consideration of the petition under section 13 (3-B) of the Cp Act as filed by the petitioner Abdul Hasrat, praying for release of the seized vehicle kept under the custody of the Op No. 3. Advocate on behalf of the Ops appeared before the Forum and files V. Nama with objection by filing show cause.   

                                    Heard the case from both side, as per the allegation made by the petitioner, he has purchased the vehicle (Pickup Van) bearing Regd. No. OR-16E-1374 financed from the company of Ops which the petitioner has been repaying the finance dues to the company and due to some problems could not repay some pending dues of EMIs, as a result suddenly on dated 07.01.2015 Ops through his agent illegally seized the finance vehicle from Bargaon.  Against the illegality and negligence of service by the Ops, petitioner has filed complaint petition before this Forum for claiming compensation and during pendency of the same pray for passing interim order to release the seized vehicle from the Ops illegally seized through his agent. The learned advocate on behalf of the Ops filed objection by way of show cause stating that, in due course of time the petitioner could not pay the EMIs in time and become chronic defaulter, as a result an amount of Rs.1, 10,039/- as loan outstanding with over dues charges of Rs. 32,199.83 is pending  against him. Further the learned advocate on behalf of the Ops submit that, in respect to the matter as above an award has already been passed by the sole arbitrator which the petitioner suppressed the material fact before the forum.    

 Considering the fact and circumstances of this case as above, perusal of documents available in the record and hearing the case from both side, it is found that, there was suppression of material fact as to the matter of disposal and passing award of arbitration proceeding by the sole arbitrator in respect to the matter of this case by the petitioner.  Challenging the allegation as made by the petition praying for releasing seized vehicle, the Ops  has filed some decisions passed by different appellate authorities and submits that, during pendency or disposal of any arbitration proceeding in terms of hire purchase agreement the case in respect to the same matter is not maintainable in this Forum.  Hence in reference to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 238, TATA FINANCE LTD. –Versus- AJAY KUMAR BISWAL & OTHERS, Honourable National Commission, New Delhi reported in 2006 (3) CPR 339 (NC), in the case of INSTALMENT SUPPLY LTD.- Versus – KANGRA EX_ SERVICEMAN TRANSPORT CO. & ANO held that, “ A complaint cannot be decided by the consumer Fora after an arbitration award is already passed”.   

                       Accordingly the Misc. petition filed by the petitioner before this Forum is hereby rejected.  

                                                      Accordingly Misc. Case is disposed of.