The brief facts of the case is that the complainant has financed a truck bearing registration No.OD09P 7599 amounting of Rs.32,45,596/- . After purchase of the said vehicle the complainant was paying the installment regularly but on Dtd.10.01.2023 the Ops finance company took the possession of the said vehicle and demanded Rs.8,00,000/- without the consent of the complainant. The complainant lost financially and mentally depressed. For the said unfair trade practice and deficiency of service the complainant filed this case praying Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation and demanded money.

On the above complaint the following documents are relied by the complainant

1. Photo copy of Tata Motors letter issued on dt.26.01.2023.
2. Photo copy of Aadhar Card
3. Photo copy of RC Particular.
4. Photo copy of Any other documents filed necessary at the time of hearing with oral evidence.

On the above complain the case is admitted and notice issued to Ops. The Ops appeared and filed their written version. It is submitted that as per arbitration clause of hypothecation agreement all disputes, differences, climes and questions whatsoever shall be referred to the arbitrator. Learned arbitrator Santosh B. Patil Advocate has already passed award. So the consumer commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is also submitted that the present complainant had filed consumer complain case bearing No.173 of 2023 before the DCDRC, Jagatsinghpur in apprehension of repossession. But the said complain case has been dismissed. So this complain case with interim application hit the law of ESTOPPEL. It is also submitted that the complainant is a debtor and answering Ops is a creditor. So the relation between the debtor and creditor is not coming under purview of C.P Act. As per judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC, as reported in [2006 (iii) CPJ 247] N.C. It is also submitted that the dispute pertaining to accounts cannot be said to be a consumer dispute but is a civil disputes [2005 CPJ 491] Hon’ble Nation al Commission in Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs Himanshu S. Thumar.

On the above written  version the Ops relied on following documents

1. Copy of Order dtd.18.08.2023 DCDRC, Jagatsinghpur.
2. Copy of Arbitration proceeding case No. TMFL/323/510 of 2022 in agreement contract No.5003751533.

On the above pleadings following issues are framed:- 

1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
3. Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?

FINDINGS

The complainant has filed this case suppressing the matter of arbitration on 31.01.2023 the learned arbitrator Santosh B. Patil has passed arbitral award against the complainant in arbitration case proceeding No.TMFL/323/510 of 2022. And also said complainant filed a complain case bearing C.C No.173 of 2023 against the Ops which has been dismissed on dtd.18.08.2023 by the DCDRC, Jagatsinghpur on the ground that this commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. The present complainant suppressing the above facts filed the said complain in this consumer commission seeking relief. Since the matter is decided by sole arbitrator and this commission has no jurisdiction to decide the matter of accounts which is civil in nature. So there is no cause of action arises in this case and the present case is not maintainable the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. So this commission inclined to give any relief to complainant in the present position of law.

ORDER

The complain case being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost. The interim application filed by complainant bearing I.A No.20 of 2023 has no merits to decide and pass any order.