West Bengal

Bankura

CC/91/2023

Sahajahan Shaikh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Cholamandalam Investment&Finance Company Ltd.(CIFCL) - Opp.Party(s)

Sandip Chakrabarty

22 May 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 91/2023

        Date of Filing: 26/09/2023

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.                            

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Sandip Chakraborty

For the O.P.: Ld. Advocate Raja Ganguly

 Complainant

Sahajahan Shaikh, S/O-Samsul Shaikh,R/O, Vill-Prayagpur, P.O-Pearberia,P.S-Sonamukhi,Dist-Bankura,Pin-722208,.Mob-9330427062

 

Opposite Party                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

1. The Branch Manager,Cholamandalam Investment&Finance Company Ltd.(CIFCL),1^st Floor, Kalyani Bhawan,Beside Flyover,Kerani Bandh,Lalbazar,P.O,P.S&Dist-Bankura,Pin-722101

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Cholamandalam Investment&Finance Company Ltd.(CIFCL),Dare House,1^st Floor,2,NSC Bose Road,Chennai-600001

Email ID-customercare@chola.murugappa.com,SMS-9500000312

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

Order No.10,

Dt.22-05-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he purchased a truck bearing Registration No.WB-67B/8786 by taking loan from O.P./Finance Co. under a Hire Purchase Agreement No. being XVFPBKA00004579897, dt.22/02/2022 and in default of repayment of EMI of loan the O.P./Finance Co. repossessed the said vehicle on 03/09/2022 from the driver while plying on the road. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for return of the seized truck along with relevant documents with compensation.

O.P./Finance Co. contested the case by filing a written statement contending inter alia that an award has been passed in this case in Arbitration Case No.SD/MAY/B01/23, dt.29/09/2023 whereby the Complainant has been held to be a defaulter of loan directing him to pay outstanding amount of Rs.4,20,183/- with interest to the O.P./Finance Co. holding that Arbitration tribunal is satisfied from the documentary evidence that the claimant after getting the possession of the said vehicle has sold the vehicle on 30/11/2022 at Rs.14 Lakh and have incurred loss of Rs.3,72,451/- which is accepted as outstanding amount together with other incidental charges and as such the instant case is not maintainable.                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                          Contd……p/2

Page: 2

 -: Decision with Reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents on both sides the commission finds that the instant complaint case has been filed on 26/09/2023 and pending any decision by this Commission the aforesaid award has been passed on 29/09/2023 with the findings as above.. The Commission has therefore no jurisdiction to decide the present dispute after going into the merit of the case.

In view of Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the Commission cannot take any independent view on the merits of the case which is contrary to the Arbitral Award already passed in the matter as it will amount to interference with the Arbitral award and give rise to conflict of decisions which is not desirable and permissible under the law.

The Complainant has however a civil remedy to go before the competent Court of law for setting aside the said award. The proceeding of repossession of the vehicle cannot thus be called in question and entertained by this Commission. It is no doubt true that existence of an arbitration  clause in the Hire Purchase agreement will not debar the Commission from entertaining any consumer complaint but once an Arbitral award is passed the Commission is denuded of its power for adjudication afresh into the same matter already decided by a competent forum.

Accordingly the case fails on this preliminary ground.

Hence, it is ordered…….

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

 

     __________________                   ________________         

 HON’BLE   PRESIDENT            HON’BLE  MEMBER