DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 446
Instituted on: 06.09.2017
Decided on: 08.01.2018
Gurpreet Singh son of Kulwant Singh resident of Nawan Killa ( Rehmatgarh) Sikha Wala Mohalla Malerkota District Sangrur through his attorney and father Kulwant Singh.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Tata Motors Finance Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO No.20, Ist Floor, City Centre, Bhupindera Road Patiala.
2. Krishna Auto Sales Nabha Road, Malerkotla District Sangrur through its Partner.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1 : Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate.
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2 : Exparte.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Gurpreet Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a new ACE HT BS 111 HD from OP no.2 who arranged loan facility from OP no.1. The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- in cash to OP no.1 for getting the vehicle registered from registering authority Sangrur. In the first week of June 2017 the Goons of OP no.1 visited the house of complainant and asked him to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- being due installments as well as Rs.10,000/- as penalty. The complainant requested to give some time but they refused to accede the request and forcibly took the vehicle of complainant with them. Thereafter father of the complainant visited the office of OP no.1 in the last week of July 2017 and requested to release the vehicle by accepting the balance due installments but the OP no.1 did not do anything. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to release the truck of complainant and also refund the illegal charge,
ii) OPs be directed to return all the blank security cheques taken at the time of financing of loan,
iii) OPs be also directed to pay Rs.Two Lacs on account of mental agony and harassment and
iv) OPs be directed to issue the RC of the vehicle alongwith all documents and also to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were sent to the OPs but none has appeared for the OP no.2 despite service. As such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte.
3. In reply filed by OP no.1, it is stated that the complainant with malafide intention mention that wrong contact number as 5001679678 in his complaint and said contract is related to Shiv Raj Meghwal son of Hari Om, Basti Ranghabadi, so the OPs could not trace the loan file of the complainant in very short period and as such Op is unable to file the reply on merits. Thereafter at the stage the respondent is unable to file the reply on merits. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
4. During the pendency of the present proceedings, OP no.1 has moved an application for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable as the Arbitration Award Regarding the Contract being number 5001679698 has already been passed on 10.08.2017 in Arbitration Case No. TMFL/10870 of 2017. The complainant has filed reply of the application wherein it has been stated that complainant is not aware about any arbitration proceedings nor any notice was ever served to the complainant and no Arbitration award was passed in presence of complainant. It has been further stated that no notice was sent to the complainant nor any copy of award was sent to him. The complainant has independent remedy under the Consumer Protection Act and the alleged award has no effect over the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.
5. We have perused the entire record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. We also find that the OP No.1 has specifically mentioned that the matter was referred to Sole Arbitrator Mr. N.C. Joseh as per Sectiion 23 of the agreement. The arbitrator on 18.05.22017 passed the interim order under section 17 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 and as per the order the OP no.1 took the possession of the vehicle . Thereafter the final award was passed on 10.08.2017 and copy of the same was duly sent to the complainant and his father through registered post and after receipt of copy of the award the complainant filed the present complaint. In support of their case, the OP no.1 has produced on record copy of interim order passed on 18.05.2017 and copy of final award passed on 10.08.2017. The OP no.1 has also produced on record copy of postal receipts regarding sending the interim order and final award to the complainant which fully prove that the same was duly sent to the complainant through registered post.
6. To strengthen of their case, the OP no.1 has also cited a ruling of the Hon'ble National Commission namely Magma Finance Limited Vs. Gulzar Ali 2016 (2) C.P.J. 231 wherein it was held that whether complaint can be decided by Consumer Fora after arbitration award already passed. As per agreement entered into between parties matter to be referred to Arbitrator . Terms and conditions of agreement do not bar jurisdiction of Consumer Fora but when parties to proceed , first of all, before Arbitrator, in that event jurisdiction of Commission stand barred. Moreover Consumer Fora cannot question award and no power to set aside award decree passed by Civil Court.
7. For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the application moved by the OP no.1 for dismissal of the complaint. So, the present application is allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
January 8 , 2018
(Sarita Garg) ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member President
