West Bengal

Bankura

CC/89/2015

Gopal Mukherjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Indusind Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANKURA

 Consumer  Complaint  No. 89/2015

Date of Filing : 22.07.2015

Before:

1. Samiran Dutta                Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee               Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant: Ld. Advocate  

For the O.P. Ld. Advocate Jayanta Chowdhury

Complainant

1.Sri Gopal Mukherjee    2. Sri Dipu Mukherjee

 Opposite Party

The Branch Manager, Industrial Bank Ltd., City Centre, Durgapur, Burdwan

DELIVERY OF JUDGEMENT,

Dt.04- 01 -2023

 

The Commission proceeds to deliver judgement here-in-below: -

The complainant case is that the complainant No.1 being the borrower and Complainant No.2 being the Guarantor entered into two separate Loan agreement No.being WAD00389D &  WAD00390D with the O.P. on the same date i.e.29-12-2012 for purchase of two Lorries No. being WB 67 A 4060 & WB 67 A 4160 for Rs.18 Lakh each on certain terms and conditions. After payment of monthly installments regularly the complainant  No.1 faced some unforeseen troubles in his business which compelled him to surrender both vehicles to the O.P. who accordingly took possession of the aforesaid vehicles on 11-10-2014 preparing two separate repossession Inventory list. Thereafter without giving any notice to the complainants the O.P. sold the aforesaid vehicles and recovered the whole loan amount and also effected the transfer of ownership of vehicles through R.T.A., Bankura. But the O.P. sent two notices to the complainant by letter dated: 04-03-2015 in respect of Loan agreement No. WAD00389D demanding Rs.3,78,619/-  and Rs.4,32,734/- in respect of Loan agreement No. WAD00390D with the intimation that the matter has been referred to the Arbitrator for disposal of the dispute. The complainants have therefore filed the instant case against the O.P. praying for appropriate relief.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Contd………p/2

Page: 2

The O.P. contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable before this forum as the matter has been adjudicated in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.

In support of the complaint the complainants have produced all the relevant documents and to counter the claim of the complainants two separate Arbitral Awards No. being 343 of 2015 and 344 of 2015 both dated: 29-06-2015 have been produced at the time of hearing.

Thus the main point for controversy in this case is whether in view of the aforesaid Arbitral awards this Commission has any jurisdiction to entertain the instant case.                                                                                                               

It is clearly provided in Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any matters covered by this part no Judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this part. It is surprising to note that the complainant by suppressing the above mentioned two Arbitral awards dated:29-06-2015 passed ex-parte has filed the instant complaint on 22-07-2015 claiming similar relief from the O.P. on the same Cause of Action. It is also a sorry state of affairs on behalf of the O.P. that there is no whisper of the aforesaid two Arbitral awards in the written version though it was filed on 22-04-2016 after passing of the Arbitral awards. It is well settled that Arbitration Clause is not a bar to entertain Consumer complaint vide the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2015) CPJ 5 (SC) but this case is different as Arbitral award has already been passed prior to the filing of the instant complaint and so this Commission has no power to take a different view as it will give rise to conflict of decisions between two forums which is not desirable and permissible under the law.

On perusal of the above mentioned two  awards it is found that the complainants were refused to get the relief in those Arbitral proceedings with the direction upon the complainant to pay Rs.3,78,619/- and Rs.4,32,734/- to the O.P. with interest . Thus the complainants have no locus standi to seek for similar reliefs before this Commission.

As stated above in view of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 the jurisdiction of this Commission is ousted exclusively to entertain any complaint the subject matter of which is already decided in the aforesaid Arbitration proceedings. Only remedy lies with the complainants to approach competent Civil Court for setting aside Ex-parte Arbitral Award.                                  

                                                                                                                                                                             Contd………..p/3

Page: 3

For the reasons stated above the instant case is not maintainable.

Hence it is ordered……

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this judgement free of cost.

 

                                         ____________________                                                         _________________                    

                                       HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                                                       HON’BLE MEMBER