1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he took a loan of Rs.1, 60,000/- + financial charges from OP.1 for purchase of a truck by hypothecating his truck bearing No. AP 16V 2288 in favour of STFC Ltd., Salur branch vide Agreement No.0004220006 or SALUU 0209180003 and at the time of availing such loan the employees of OP.1 took signatures of the complainant and guarantor on unfilled blank loan agreement on two sets as well as on white papers.  On 05.08.2010 the complainant wrote to OP.1 to provide copy of sanction letter, agreement copy and other papers but they did not reply.  In spite of repayment of EMIs the Ops repossessed the vehicle without any intimation to the complainant and also sold the truck illegally causing financial loss to the complainant.  It is submitted that without supply of copy of any documents, the agent of the Ops intimated the complainant that the loan amount  plus interest is Rs.2, 60,000/- and the complainant has paid Rs.2, 62,480/- and in spite of such payment, the Ops illegally repossessed and sold the vehicle in a throw away price.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to issue NDC and to refund Rs.2.00 lacs towards cost of the vehicle and to pay Rs.2.00 lacs towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant availed finance facilities for his two vehicles Vide Agreement No.SALUU0207190010 dt.16.8.2012 for Vehicle No. AP 16V 2288 and (2) SALUU 0200180003 dt.20.9.2012 for Vehicle No. AP 16V 3177 and executed two separate agreements the copies of which were issued in favour of the complainant with due acknowledgement.  It is submitted that the complainant was irregular in payment of EMIs for which the Ops after repeated reminders, repossessed both the vehicles and sold in open auction and also initiated Arbitration Proceedings vide AANo.497/2015 for Vehicle No.AP 16V 2288 and AA No.496/2015 for Vehicle No.AP 16V 3177 and the awards were passed in favour of the Ops.  The Ops also submitted that after award of arbitration the present case is not maintainable in the Forum and also denying any unfair trade practice on their part the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.  The A/R for the complainant also filed written arguments.

4.                     In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.1, 60,000/- + interest on 16.8.2012 for a total sum of Rs.2, 51,739/- from the Ops to be recovered in 39 EMIs commencing from 20.9.2012 till 20.11.2015 @ Rs.6443/- by hypothecating his vehicle bearing No. AP 16V 2288.  The complainant stated that the Ops have not granted any loan related documents to the complainant to which the Ops denied and in support of their averment that the complainant has received the documents and acknowledged the receipt, they filed copy of said documents from which it was ascertained that the complainant has received the said documents with due acknowledgement.

5.                     Further the complainant stated that in spite of payment of EMIs, the Ops repossessed the vehicle and sold it in a throw away price.  The Ops in this context stated that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and as per agreement the Company is entitled for Over Due Charges on each delayed payment and take possession of the vehicle and recover the balance by sale of the vehicle.  Accordingly the Ops repossessed the vehicle and sold it and for balance dues the Company initiated arbitration proceeding vide AANo.497 of 2015 before the Sole Arbitrator at Visakhapatnam.  The Ops also stated that in spite of notice the complainant and his guarantor did not participate in the proceeding and they were set ex-parte and award was passed on 20.6.2015 directing the Ops to recover Rs.1, 66,404/- from the complainant and his guarantor.  The Ops submitted that in view of award passed by the Arbitrator, the present case in the Forum under C. P. Act is not maintainable.  The Ld. A/R for the Ops relied certain decision in this regard.  Now it is to be seen whether a complaint can be decided by the Consumer Forum after Arbitration Award is already passed.

6.                     Reliance can be placed to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission decided between Installment Supply Ltd Vrs. Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport Co. and another reported in 2007(1) CLT 368 NC = CPJ 34 = 2006(3) CPR 339 = Vol.6 SC & NC Consumer Law Cases 435 where it has been held that “Consumer complaint cannot be decided by Consumer Fora after an arbitration award already passed.”  In this case the arbitration case vide AA No.497 of 2015  in respect of the vehicle in question against the complainant has been decided on 12.6.2015 and the present case has been filed on 29.7.2015 i.e. much after the award.  Therefore, in view of filing of present case by the complainant after passing of arbitration award, this Forum lacks jurisdiction to decide this case and the parties are bound by the award of arbitrator.

7.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant accordingly and parties shall bear their own costs.

(to dict.)