Orissa

Rayagada

CC/127/2019

Trivendra singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & finance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

03 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     127      / 2019.                                      Date.     3     . 3. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri Trivendra Singh, Rohit Colony, Near Little bird  school, Po/ Dist:Rayagada. 765 001.                                        …Complainant.

Versus.

 

Vrs.

1. The  Branch Manager, Cholomandalam Investment and  Financial Co. Ltd., , Po/Dist:Rayagada.
2. The Regional  Manager, Cholomandalam Investment and  Financial Co. Ltd., Chennai- 600 032.                                               .…..Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

.For the O.Ps  :- In person.

JUDGEMENT.

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps not to repossess the vehicle OD-18-D-5679  12 wheeler  truck   till finalization of the  case for which  the complainant  sought compensation  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

            Undisputedly the  complainant  had availed   loan  for  purchase of  second  hand  Ashok Leyland 10 wheel Truck bearing Regn.  No. OD-18-D-5679  for   a sum of Rs.9,30,000/-  vide  hypothecation  loan  agreement  No.  XSHURAY 00003021396  on Dt. 13.06.2019. The complainant  was to pay  the total amount a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-  which was also included the finance  charges Rs.1,70,000/- making  in 42   E.M.I.  monthly  installments for the period from 15.7..2019  to  15.12.2022  @  Rs.31,500.00  each E.M.I. (copies of the  loan documents and E.M.I list is  in the file which is marked as  Annexure-I.

        The main grievance of the complainant is that  he had deposited  Rs.20,000/-..  Due to personal problems and  some financial problems some E.M.Is  were  not deposited.  So the O.Ps.  threatening the  complainant  that he  will repossess the  above vehicle  and they will  sale  the same  to clear off the loan amount. Hence this  C.C. case.

The  O.P. in their written version contended that   as per the loan agreement he had not  repaid the loan amount as per the E.M.Is for  which the complainant is liable to pay the entire loan dues with updated interest as per the terms and conditions  of the agreement since he has fully violated  the terms of agreement.

The O.Ps 1 &2  contended that  the  complainant is irregular in repayment  and admittedly he is a defaulter of E.M.Is. Since the complainant has failed to pay the installments and he knows  that consequential action by  the O.Ps for  recovery of the loan dues  is inevitable. The O.Ps had addressed letters and sent notices to the complainant but of no avail.   The complainant was  informed  about the balance payable by him and as the complainant did not pay the amount, the O.Ps have initiated arbitration proceeding. The O.Ps had followed the procedure laid by the terms  and conditions of agreement of hypothecation and other formalities as per the existing  laws. No deficiency in service or negligence or irregularities can be  attributed to the O.Ps.

The O.Ps. 1 & 2  contended that  the complainant failed to pay the installments as per schedule,  the O.P. 1 & 2 addressed   letters  and gave notice but the  complainant did not turn up to pay the installments and the O.Ps  have initiated arbitration proceeding. The  O.Ps. had issued demand notice  and several personal contact  with the complainant   for payment of the loan amount. As the complainant did not pay the loan amount, the  O.Ps have  initiated arbitration proceedings. Ms. S.Rajeni, the Sole Arbitrator had passed award on Dt.30.10.2019.  (Copies  of the  Arbitration order is in the file  which is marked as Annexure-1).  It is contended  on behalf of the  O.Ps that once the arbitrator has passed the award, it becomes enforceable under Section-36 of  the Arbitration Act. It is  submitted that there would be a conflict of jurisdiction  in relation to  the proceedings instituted by the complainant under the provisions  of the C.P. Act and the  proceedings under the Arbitration Act instituted by the O.P.

For better appreciation this forum relied citation it is held and reported in CPJ-2007(1) page No. 34 the Hon’ble  National Commission  where in  observed  in the case of  Instalment Supply Ltd. Vrs.  V.Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport Co. and another  held that once an award is passed by the  Arbitrator  in respect of the same subject matter that of the   complaint  pending  before the Consumer Forum, the consumer forum  would not entertain the complaint.

In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it was held that once the complainant  opts for remedy of arbitration it may be possible to say that he can not subsequently file a complaint  under the Consumer Protection  Act. In the circumstances we are of the opinion  that the complaint is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act..

                .

Basing on the above citation  the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986.  It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy to approach proper forum.       

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

ORDER.

            In resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is  disposed of.

            Copies be  served on the parties as  per  rule. 

Dictated and corrected by me.  Pronounced  on  this      3rd.   Day of   March,  2021.

 

                                                                               

Member.                                                             President