Orissa

Rayagada

CC/6/2016

Anirudha Kadambala - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Mahindra - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Antarjani Mishra

09 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 06/ 2016.                                               Date.    9    .     11  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri  AnirudhaKadmbalu, AT: Laxmipur,  Dukum, Main Road, Bissamcuttack, Dist: Rayagada.

                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Branch Manager, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Po/Dist: Rayagada.

2.The Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra  Financial Services Ltd., Sadhana House, Mumbai- 400018.

3.The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai.                   … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri Antarjyami Mishra, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps 1  & 2:- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.3:- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada                                                                                                   

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  not to initiate Arbitration proceeding for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps No.1 & 2 put in their appearance and filed Arbitration  award Dt.7.5.2016 through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them and defend the case.  The O.P No.1 & 2 taking one and another pleas and  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  No. 1 & 2. Hence the O.P No.  1 & 2 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The  O.P. No.3  filed a  petition  before the forum through their learned counsel  and submitted  that    Under order-1 Rule-10 of C.P.C submitted that  the O.P. No.3  has got  no role in the transactions made  between the complainant and the  O.Ps 1 & 2 in regard to the seizure of the vehicle and also payment  of installments to the O.P. No.1.  Further  the complainant seeking no relief   in  respect of or arising out the same act or transaction.   The complaint is hit  Under order-1 Rule-10 of C.P.C . So the forum may delete the O.P. No. 3  from the cause  tile of the complaint petition. Further there is no issue to be decided against the O.P. No.3 or in favour of the complainant.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P  No. 1 & 2 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.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had  availed loan  bearing loan agreement No. 2817537 Dt.10.4.2013 for purchase of  TATA Venture GX   bearing Regd.  No. OD-18-7268 from the   O.Ps  during the month of  10^th April, 2013.  The  complainant  had  agreed to pay  the finance charges on installment basis. Due to defective vehicle the complainant  could not run the vehicle and  could not deposited  the E.M.I in time so the O.Ps 1 & 2 had taken the vehicle from the complainant with due process according to agreement.

The main grievance of the  complainant is that  the O.Ps have  forcibly took possession of the   above vehicle from his   possession  inter alia threatening   will initiate Arbitration proceeding and recover the vehicle and amount from them. Hence this C.C. case.

 

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. Mr. A.K.Goutam, the Sole Arbitrator had passed award on Dt.  07.05.2016.  (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, 1986.

                In the present case the complainant has not sought any relief from the O.P. No.3.  So this forum need not  going  to the merit  of  the  case against the O.P. No.3.

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               9 ^th.   Day of   November,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President