1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased APE PIAGGIO Diesel Auto with the financial assistance of OP.1 by depositing marginal money of Rs.36, 800/- out of the cost of the Auto at Rs.1, 98,000/-.  Accordingly the OP.1 has financed Rs.1, 62,000/- plus finance charge of Rs.54, 918/- and included Rs.10, 000/- towards insurance of the vehicle totaling Rs.2, 26,918/- and fixed 35 EMIs starting from 16.12.2014.  It is submitted that the complainant has paid EMIs regularly till 10/2015 but on 3 occasions of deposit the OP.1 did not grant receipt with plea of non availability of receipt book.  It is further submitted that on 31.12.2015 the OP.1 forcefully repossessed the vehicle without any prior intimation and the complainant on 02.1.2016 requested the OP.1 to receive Rs.20, 000/- towards EMIs but they did not receive the money stating that after due consultation with OP.2, they will act and the complainant was approaching the OP.1 regularly to receive Rs.20, 000/- since without vehicle he is facing financial hardships.  It is also submitted that he received a letter dt.30.1.2016 from the Advocate of Ops with demand of Rs.34, 499/- towards EMI as on 31.1.2016 and the complainant immediately rushed to the OP.1 to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards EMIs but the OP.1 did not receive and as the complainant threatened to take legal recourse against illegal repossession, the OP.1 issued inventory list dt.31.12.2015 which has been signed other than the complainant in English language.  The complainant also further submitted that when he was always in contact with OP.1 to pay the pending EMIs, the OP.2 sent a letter dt.16.2.2016 for surrender of R.C. Book with intention to sell the vehicle of the complainant.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.1 to release the vehicle after receipt of EMIs up to the date of repossession without charging any interest and delayed charges and to return the EMIs if the vehicle is sold by them.  The complainant further prayed to direct the OP.2 not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and OP.1 to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs towards compensation besides Rs.10, 000/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about facilitating finance in favour of the complainant for purchase of Auto vide Agreement No.OSJ00906G dt.16.12.2014 with agreed value of Rs.2, 26,918/- payable in 35 EMIs from 16.12.2014 to 21.10.2017.  It is contended that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in repayment of the loan dues for which the vehicle was repossessed and as on 30.11.2016 the complainant was due to pay Rs.71, 095/-.  It is further contended that the vehicle after repossession was sold with due procedure on 27.1.2016 for a sum of Rs.75, 000/- and the amount was credited to the loan accounts of the complainant.  Thereafter the Ops as per agreement filed arbitration case and the Ld. Arbitrator has passed award in favour of the Ops on 04.05.2016.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  The OP.2 did not prefer to participate in this case in any manner.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the A/R for the complainant as well as OP.1 and perused the materials available on record.        

4.                     In this case hypothecation agreement bearing No.OSJ00906G dt.16.12.2014 with agreed value of Rs.2, 26,981/- between the parties for purchase of an Auto by the complainant is an admitted fact and 35 EMIs were fixed for repayment of loan dues by the complainant.  The complainant stated that he was paying the loan dues regularly up to 10/2015 but on 31.12.2015 the OP.1 repossessed the vehicle without prior intimation to him.  On perusal of record it is seen that the complainant on 31.12.2015 has surrendered his vehicle before OP.1 due to his adverse financial position causing nonpayment of over dues amount of Rs.34, 499/-.  The copy of surrender letter dt.31.12.2015 filed by OP.1 is available on record.  In that surrender letter the complainant undertakes to arrange funds for repayment of loan dues.  Due to such nonpayment the OP.2 has written a letter dt.16.2.2016 to the complainant to surrender R.C. Book for sale of the vehicle to cover up the loan dues.

5.                     From the above facts, it was ascertained that the complainant by not paying the loan dues in time, he failed to discharge his contractual obligations and has come up with unclean hands to this Forum after surrender of his vehicle.  Further the Ops have filed an Arbitration case as per Clause-23 of said agreement dt.16.12.2014 seeking recovery of loan dues from the complainant and in the said case an award has made and passed on 30.11.2016 in favour of the Ops.  It is a settled principle of law that a complaint cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum after arbitration award is already passed.  As such we cannot pass any order in the present case in hand by overlooking the award of the Arbitrator passed earlier and hence the complainant petition on this ground needs dismissal.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court of law for redressal of his grievance.

6.                     With above observation, we dismiss the case of the complainant since not maintainable.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)